Two young men arguing.
The downside to living in the Information Age is that we also live in a time when misinformation runs rampant. Studies show that fake news stories spread farther than those that are true, and people tend to believe information because it suits their worldview rather than because it happens to be correct.
It would be fine if most information was about things that are inconsequential in 2024, such as Bigfoot conspiracies or who killed John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation affects people’s everyday lives, whether it’s vaccines, technology, or fluoride in our water supply. We saw it happen in real time when misinformation made it very hard for the average person to make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic, as it killed millions of people across the world.
That’s why it’s so important for people to respond correctly to misinformation. Knowing how to do so could mean the difference between life and death.
A woman who is confused by conflicting information. via Canva/Photos
A new paper in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center shows that many people have been using ineffective tactics when fighting misinformation. Most people think the best way to counter misinformation is to make a counterargument that refutes the incorrect person’s claim.
For example, if someone says that fluoride in the water supply is a way for companies to dump their toxic waste. Most people would do some Googleing and respond that, actually, that was a conspiracy theory that took hold in post-war Europe. However, researchers note that correcting people is an uphill battle. “People don’t like to be contradicted, and a belief, once accepted, can be difficult to dislodge,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes.
What’s the most effective way to counter misinformation?
Researchers suggest a more effective countermeasure to fighting misinformation: “bypassing.”
“Rather than directly addressing the misinformation, this strategy involves offering accurate information that has an implication opposite to that of the misinformation,” the Annenberg Public Policy Center writes. Instead of countering the incorrect opinion on fluoride, you bring up another positive point about fluoride that may cause them to reconsider their beliefs. Simply put, you counter the “negative implication of the misinformation with positive implications, without taking the difficult path of confrontation.”
So, if someone says, “Flouride is toxic waste,” you can respond with, “The Centers for Disease Control says Flouride is one of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century, reducing tooth decay by approximately 25% in children and adults.”
One of the study authors, Granados Samayoa, says that “bypassing can generally be superior to correction, specifically in situations when people are focused on forming beliefs, but not attitudes, about the information they encounter.”
Friends having a friendly debate.via Canva/Photos
What is the ‘backfire effect’?
The “bypass” strategy also makes sense because of the “backfire effect,” a psychological phenomenon that says when people are introduced to credible information that contradicts their firmly held beliefs, they reject it and hold onto their beliefs even more strongly. Considering this, countering someone's misinformation with contradictory evidence may even worsen things for both parties involved.
The good news is that you don’t have to be a super-hero fact-checker to combat the spread of misinformation or have to get in someone’s face and start a heated argument. Using strategies like bypassing, you can help tackle misinformation in a non-confrontational and effective way. It’s all about shifting the conversation and planting a seed of truth that could grow into greater understanding.
Coworkers come to an agreement.via
Coworkers come to an agreement.via
A father listening to his son.via