(Newswire.net— April 21, 2020) — Many smart people have fallen for the dangerous lies being spread about the new Coronavirus, its relation to 5G technology, and other conspiracy theories. Why is that?
Some of you might say because it is true! Well, scientists say you might be wrong.
The BBC’s Future Reality Check team is checking popular Coronavirus claims, and the World Health Organization is keeping their myth-busting page regularly updated as well.
Less informed and educated people gladly respond to various myths about the new Coronavirus, however, some well-educated people believe in the same misinformation as well. Even some of the world’s leaders, who you would hope to have better discernment abilities when it comes to unfounded rumors, have been guilty of spreading inaccurate information about the global pandemic. Are they poorly informed or do they know something we don’t?
Fortunately, psychologists are already studying this phenomenon. And what they’ve discovered suggests new ways we can protect ourselves from lies and help disseminate misinformation and misbehavior at the root of the issue.
Information overload
Part of the problem stems from the nature of the messages themselves.
We are constantly bombarded with information all day, every day, every minute, and so when deciding whether something is true, we often rely on our intuition. We simply don’t have the time to spare on probing the authenticity of the information so we rely on trusted sources, but is this enough?
We are likely to believe the truthfulness of a fact if we see a picture attached to the information being presented, and we trust it even more if there is a video. Psychologist Dr. Eryn Newman from Australian National University has shown that the mere presence of an image with a statement enhances our confidence in its credibility – even if it is only indicative of the claim.
A generic picture of a virus, with some claim to a new treatment, for example, may not provide evidence for the statement itself, but it does help us imagine a general scenario. We take this “fluency of processing” as a subconscious proof that the given claim is true.
For similar reasons, misinformation will contain descriptive language or vivid personal stories. It will also have a substantial amount of well known facts or figures, such as stating the name of a recognized medical body, to make the lie that is hidden there all the more plausible, allowing it to build on our prior knowledge.
Nazi German propaganda mastermind Goebels said that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth – and he was right. The more often we see something in our news feed, we will be more inclined to think its true – even if at first we were skeptical of it.
Sharing without thinking
These tricks have long been known to propagandists and disseminators of misinformation, but today’s social networks could reinforce our propensity for confidentiality. New evidence suggests that many people reflexively share content without even considering its credibility. Just remember how many times you instinctively hit that “share” button without thinking if the information we just shared may be fake news.
Overcoming reactions
Classical psychological research shows that some people are naturally better at overcoming reflexes than others. This result could help us understand why some people are more vulnerable to fake news than others.
Researchers like Bialek and Pennycook use a tool called the “cognitive reflection test” or CRT to measure this tendency. To understand how it works, consider the following question:
Emily’s father has three daughters. The first two are called “April” and “May”. What is the name of the third daughter?
If you respond with “June” it’s an intuitive answer given by many, but the correct answer, is of course- Emily.
When it comes to our own behavior on the Internet, we might be able to try to break away from the emotion of the content and think a bit more about its factual basis before passing it on.
So, before you instinctively hit the share button on social media, you may consider this:
Is it based on rumors or on solid scientific evidence?
Can you get to the original source?
How does it sound compared to existing data?
Does the author rely on common logical fallacies when presenting his arguments?
If you find any inconsistency, you may want to reconsider before you share that information.
Trusted sources
“The CNN must not lie to me, I am a taxpayer!” said an American psychologist in 1999 when confronted with fake news evidence said by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour about the civil war in Bosnia. She deeply believed in the moral and professional guidance of mainstream media who should respect her as a taxpaying American.
Today, however, we do know better. Some 63% of people agree that there are no more objective news sources, and 66% say internet news and content is dividing people rather than uniting them, according to the “2019 Best Countries U.S. News & World Report.”
The complex issue of listening to a “trusted source”, whether it is authorities or mainstream media is under the scope. Giving that it is too easy to publish images or videos from another country and another time and claim it is something else relying on our lack of interest to check the info, the ease of faking photographs and even videos is frightening.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed,” said Academy Award-winning actor Denzel Washington commenting on the topic of “fake news.”
So, who should we trust?
Well, that is a good question, one that we should ask ourselves whenever we receive new information.