Update on NSF Funding Cuts for Misinformation Research

Apr. 24, 2025

Background

The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently terminated hundreds of research grants, including those focused on misinformation, disinformation, and “malinformation.” The NSF justified these cuts by stating that research aimed at combating misinformation would “infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.” Grants containing terms like “misinformation” in their abstracts were among those abruptly canceled, even when they were not scheduled to end for months or years.


The impact has been immediate and widespread across the scientific community. Researchers studying issues like information processing, science communication, and public understanding of science have had their funding abruptly terminated. Projects investigating the psychological underpinning of how false information spreads and affects beliefs and behaviors—research that has proven critical during public health emergencies—are now at risk. Despite a temporary restraining order earlier this year that prevented the freezing of grant payments, the NSF has proceeded with terminating grants it deems “not aligned” with its current priorities.


According to reports, these terminations were made without giving researchers the standard opportunity to appeal the decisions, marking a significant departure from prior NSF procedures. The agency has also announced it will no longer prioritize funding research on misinformation in future grant cycles.

APA/APASI Assessment

APA expresses significant concern about the NSF’s decision to terminate funding for misinformation research. This decision impacts multiple areas critical to psychological science, practice, public health, and education:


  • Foundational and Applied Science: Psychologists have long contributed to the science of learning and knowledge processing that underpins how people process information and use it to guide behavior. The application of that research has resulted in improvements to daily life, helping people weigh options and engage in informed decision-making. Without research on how people receive, interpret, and make decisions based on the information they receive, our understanding of how information spreads and how and why it is acted on or believed will be limited. 
  • Research Infrastructure: The abrupt termination of funding threatens to dismantle research teams and infrastructure that have been carefully developed over many years. This disruption may result in the loss of specialized expertise and make it difficult to quickly resume this important work even if funding priorities are reorganized in the future.
  • Public Health Implications: Misinformation can have real-world impacts on public health. For example, medical misinformation about the scientifically disproven link between autism and childhood vaccines has increased parental vaccine hesitancy, directly affected vaccination take-up rates, placing children at risk for severe illness and death. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated how misinformation can profoundly affect health behaviors and outcomes. Studies show that exposure to fabricated news stories about COVID-19 measurably influenced behavioral intentions related to vaccination and other preventive health measures. Research also demonstrates that misinformation undermines not just individual health, but also collective action—especially in historically underserved communities. Cutting research on misinformation potentially endangers future public health responses and could promote other public health crises.
  • Educational Challenges: Educators face growing difficulties as students encounter misinformation, like AI-generated content that may contain misleading or false information. Research on critical thinking skills and digital literacy is essential for developing effective educational approaches in an increasingly complex information landscape.

APA’s Position

Consistent with our mission to advance the creation, communication, and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve lives, APA and APA Services Inc. maintain that rigorous, objective scientific inquiry is paramount for understanding complex phenomena like the spread and impact of misinformation. Our position is firmly grounded in psychological science, as detailed in the APA consensus statement, “Using Psychological Science to Understand and Fight Health Misinformation”. This statement highlights the essential role of psychological research in developing evidence-based approaches to address this significant societal challenge. 


APA and APA Services strongly advocate for stable and robust federal funding for behavioral and psychological science, including research related to information processing, communication, and belief formation. This research infrastructure is critical for generating the evidence needed to inform effective interventions and policy. We are deeply concerned that terminating grants based on keywords or perceived political viewpoints, rather than scientific merit determined through peer review, undermines the scientific enterprise and threatens critical research capacity. APA and APA Services continue to oppose actions that compromise scientific integrity and continue to advocate for funding decisions based solely on scientific merit. 


Protecting the research infrastructure and the integrity of the scientific process remains a core advocacy priority.

What Psychologists Can Do

As this situation develops, psychologists are encouraged to:


  • Preserve research findings and data: If you have conducted research on misinformation, take steps to ensure that your data and findings are securely preserved and, where appropriate, made accessible to other researchers and disseminated to the public. Consider ways to continue providing your expertise even without federal funding.
  • Explore alternative funding sources: Consider foundations, private donors, state-level agencies, and international collaborations that may support continued research on misinformation. Many non-federal entities still recognize the importance of this work.
  • Maintain commitment to evidence-based practice: Continue to provide scientifically grounded assessment, intervention, consultation, and support services.
  • Stay abreast of policy developments: Actively monitor official communications from NSF and other federal agencies regarding changes to research priorities and funding mechanisms. Regularly check for updates, resources, and guidance from APA/APASI to stay informed on the professional response and available support.

Moving Forward

APA and APA Services will continue to:



  • Uphold rigorous standards for research and communication: APA will insist that research in this field adheres to the highest standards of methodological rigor, ethical conduct, and transparency. Furthermore, we will advocate for the accurate and responsible communication of research findings to prevent further misinterpretation.
  • Ensure protection of scientific integrity: APA will work to safeguard the independence and integrity of scientific research from political interference, advocating for funding decisions based on scientific merit.

What the Science Says

Psychological research provides critical insights about the harms of misinformation that emphasize the importance of continued scientific investigation in this area. 

Research shows that susceptibility to misinformation is not merely a matter of intelligence or education but involves complex psychological processes influenced by emotions, prior beliefs, and social context.


Studies demonstrate that our emotions can impact our belief in false information. Anger, in particular, increases susceptibility to misinformation while simultaneously increasing confidence in the accuracy of source attributions and decision speed for making incorrect judgments (Greenstein & Franklin, 2020). This combination makes it difficult for individuals to recognize when they have been misled.


The ability to recognize misinformation is further complicated by our tendency to believe information that aligns with our existing beliefs and identities. When people encounter false information that confirms their worldview, they are more likely to accept it, integrate it into their memory, and spread it, even when explicitly warned that it might be false. For example, one study examining how attitudes toward feminism affect susceptibility to feminism-related fake news demonstrated that the more negative participants' attitudes towards feminism, the more likely they were to report a false memory for a fabricated event that negatively reflected on the feminist movement, and vice-versa (Gillian et al., 2021). 


Social context also plays a crucial role. Research has demonstrated that repeated exposure to false claims, even when they seem implausible at first, can gradually increase perceived accuracy—a phenomenon known as the “illusory truth effect” (Pennycook et al., 2018). This presents particular challenges in social media environments where repetition is common. Additionally, Wang et al. (2019) found that when misinformation comes from trusted sources or appears to be widely believed, people are more likely to accept it without critical evaluation.


Perhaps most concerning, research suggests that correcting misinformation is far more difficult than preventing its initial acceptance. Once false information has been integrated into a person's understanding, corrections may be rejected or even strengthen the original false belief. This underscores the importance of developing “prebunking” or “inoculation” approaches that build resistance to misinformation before exposure. Maertens et al. (2021) demonstrated that such inoculation approaches can build resistance that remains stable for up to three months.


These findings have significant real-world implications for science, public health, education, and more. For example, research has demonstrated measurable effects of COVID-19 misinformation on behavioral intentions related to preventive health measures (Greene & Murphy, 2021). Without continued research on misinformation, we will not have the scientific insights needed to develop effective interventions that can help individuals and communities navigate increasingly complex information environments.

APA Resources on Misinformation

From policies, reports, and continuing education to books for adults and children, APA has a wide range of resources and guidance to aid psychologists in navigating issues related to misinformation.

References

Gillian, M., Murray, E., & Doireann, G. (2021). Attitudes towards feminism predict susceptibility to feminism related fake news. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3851


Greene, C. M., & Murphy, G. (2021). Quantifying the effects of fake news on behavior: Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000371


Greenstein, M., & Franklin, N. (2020). Anger increases susceptibility to misinformation. Experimental Psychology, 67(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000489


Maertens, R., Roozenbeek, J., Basol, M., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 27(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000315


Martel, C., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3


O'Brien, T. C., Palmer, R., & Albarracin, D. (2021). Misplaced trust: When trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184


Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465


Scherer, L. D., McPhetres, J., Pennycook, G., Kempe, A., Allen, L. A., Knoepke, C. E., Tate, C. E., & Matlock, D. D. (2021). Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses. Health Psychology, 40(4), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000978


Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552