Comparative Effectiveness of Prebunking and Debunking in Misinformation Mitigation

Misinformation poses a persistent threat to public understanding, decision-making, and democratic processes, and necessitating effective mitigation strategies. This study examines the comparative effectiveness of prebunking and debunking interventions in reducing belief in misinformation, limiting its spread, and fostering long-term resistance. Prebunking, grounded in inoculation theory, aims to prepare individuals against misinformation prior to exposure by enhancing critical awareness of manipulation techniques, while debunking focuses on correcting false claims after exposure. Drawing on experimental and real-world evidence, the analysis evaluates both shortterm outcomes such as belief accuracy and sharing intentions and longer-term effects, including retention and behavioral change. Findings suggest that both strategies are effective but operate through distinct mechanisms. Prebunking demonstrates stronger potential in preventing initial susceptibility and reducing residual influence, particularly among audiences with low prior knowledge. Debunking, however, remains more effective in correcting entrenched false beliefs once misinformation has been internalized. The evidence further indicates that contextual factors such as audience characteristics, content type, and platform dynamics significantly moderate outcomes. Overall, the study highlights that neither approach is sufficient in isolation; instead, a complementary strategy integrating prebunking and debunking offers the most robust framework for mitigating misinformation and enhancing information resilience. Keywords: Misinformation, Prebunking , Debunking, Inoculation Theory and Information Resilience.