Why false information spread fast than the true
information? An intriguing new study released last week in Psychological
Science in the Public Interest reveals why people are more apt to believe false
information being fed to them by the media and politicians.
Image Source: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1095398
According to the team of psychological scientists working
on the study, led by Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western
Australia, the main reason that people are more likely to believe false
information (for example, that climate change is a hoax) is because it actually
takes less brain power to believe a statement is false than to accept it as
truth. Finding the truth takes time and effort that people often don’t care
enough to spend on particular issues that aren’t of immediate concern.
A
few excerpts from the report:
The main reason that misinformation is sticky, according
to the researchers, is that rejecting information actually requires cognitive
effort. Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively
more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true – it requires
additional motivational and cognitive resources. If the topic isn’t very
important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more
likely to take hold.
And when we do take the time to thoughtfully evaluate
incoming information, there are only a few features that we are likely to pay
attention to: Does the information fit with other things I believe in? Does it
make a coherent story with what I already know? Does it come from a credible
source? Do others believe it?
Misinformation is especially sticky when it conforms to
our preexisting political, religious, or social point of view. Because of this,
ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to
overcome.
Even worse, efforts to retract misinformation often
backfire, paradoxically amplifying the effect of the erroneous belief.
In the United States, we’ve seen several major
misinformation campaigns over the years, perpetrated by both the media and
politicians. Some of the most prominent campaigns include attempts to convince
Americans that climate change is a hoax, that Saddam Hussein was somehow
involved in the attacks of 9/11, and that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in
America. To refute all of these claims by “leaders” would take time and research
by individuals, which is often neglected. As the report explains, this is how
these misinformation campaigns become successful.
And the success of misinformation is clearly represented
in public opinion polls. Acceptance of climate change has fluctuated wildly
over the last few years, reaching 71% acceptance by the population in November
2008, falling to 52% in 2010, and then reaching back up to 66% this year.
As for the “Saddam Hussein was involved with the 9/11
attacks” talking point, polls showed that 70% of people believed that statement
in 2003, and even last year 38% of Americans still held that incorrect view.
As for President Obama’s nationality, 30% of registered
Republicans still believe that the president was not born in America, and 20%
of the general population holds that incorrect belief as well.
As the new study points out, all of these wrongly held
beliefs can have a clear, negative effect on societies:
The processes by which people from their opinions and
beliefs are therefore of obvious public interest, particularly if major streams
of beliefs persist that are in opposition to established facts. If a majority
believes in something that is factually incorrect, the misinformation may form
the basis for political and societal decisions that run counter to a society’s
best interest; if individuals are misinformed, they may likewise make decisions
for themselves and their families that are not in their best interest and can
have serious consequences.
Reliance on misinformation differs from ignorance, which
we define as the absence of relevant knowledge. Ignorance, too, can have
obvious detrimental effects on decision making, but, perhaps surprisingly,
those effects may be less severe than those arising from reliance on
misinformation. Ignorance may be a lesser evil because in the self-acknowledged
absence of knowledge, people often turn to simple heuristics when making
decisions.
But not all misinformation is deliberate, according to
the study. While certain groups actively attempt to mislead the public – for a
prime example, see DeSmogBlog’s treasure trove of information on the Heartland
Institute’s attempts to mislead the public on climate change – the study tells
us that sometimes, misinformation is by accident. In an attempt to be the first
to break a story, media outlets will often rush on air without all of the
facts, or with "facts" that aren’t true, resulting in misinformation
spreading like wildfire.
The study lays out the most common sources of
misinformation as follows:
Rumors
and fiction. Societies have struggled with the
misinformation-spreading effects of rumors for centuries, if not millennia;
what is perhaps less obvious is that even works of fiction can give rise to
lasting misconceptions of the facts.
Governments
and politicians. Governments and politicians can be powerful
sources of misinformation, whether inadvertently or by design.
Vested
interests. Corporate interests have a long and well-documented
history of seeking to influence public debate by promulgating incorrect
information. At least on some recent occasions, such systematic campaigns have
also been directed against corporate interests, by nongovernmental interest
groups.
The
media. Though the media are by definition seeking to inform the
public, it is notable that they are particularly prone to spreading
misinformation for systemic reasons that are worthy of analysis and exposure.
With regard to new media, the Internet has placed immense quantities of
information at our fingertips, but it has also contributed to the spread of
misinformation. The growing use of social networks may foster the quick and
wide dissemination of misinformation. The fractionation of the information
landscape by new media is an important contributor to misinformation’s
particular resilience to correction.
So the big question is this – How do we combat the mental
apathy that helps reinforce misinformation? The study tells us that we can do
the following:
Provide people with a narrative that replaces the gap
left by false information
Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the
myths
Make sure that the information you want people to take
away is simple and brief
Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to
hold
Strengthen your message through repetition
It may not be possible to completely undo or prevent all
of the potential damage that can be caused by misleading and false information,
but education appears to be the key to slowing it down. An informed public can
fight false information from vested interests, and the benefits of doing so
could easily have positive global ramifications.
Post a Comment