The disconcerting potential of online disinformation: Persuasive effects of astroturfing comments and three strategies for inoculation against them

This study is the first to scrutinize the psychological effects of online astroturfing in the context of Russia’s digitally enabled foreign propaganda. Online astroturfing is a communicative strategy that uses websites, “sock puppets,” or social bots to create the false impression that a particular opinion has widespread public support. We exposed N = 2353 subjects to pro-Russian astroturfing comments and tested: (1) their effects on political opinions and opinion certainty and (2) the efficiency of three inoculation strategies to prevent these effects. All effects were investigated across three issues and from a short- and long-term perspective. Results show that astroturfing comments can indeed alter recipients’ opinions, and increase uncertainty, even when subjects are inoculated before exposure. We found exclusively short-term effects of only one inoculation strategy (refutational-same). As these findings imply, preemptive media literacy campaigns should deploy (1) continuous rather than one-time efforts and (2) issue specific rather than abstract inoculation messages.

Astroturf, front groups, sock puppets, and the capture of civil society

Civil society is widely thought of as an obstacle to corporate political strategy. This chapter suggests that civil society can be an ally in corporate attempts to undermine public health. It reviews the use of astroturf (i.e. fake grassroots groups) and ‘sock puppets’ (i.e. fake online identities) and discusses these in relation to the corporate-backed ‘sound science’ lobby. The chapter reviews the role of the tobacco and other addictive industries in creating front groups to pursue sectional corporate interests. It looks in turn at interlocking efforts such as the European Science and Environment Forum, the Risk of Freedom briefing, and more recent ventures such as the Institute of Ideas and Spiked the Democracy Institute. These groups are mostly not transparent about their relations with the corporations, and may exhibit some measure of independence from their corporate funders; however, any independence—real or manufactured—is not necessarily a disadvantage.