Diverting an individual’s attention away from misinformation and redirecting it to other beliefs can be just as effective as debunking it, according to new research by Professor Dolores Albarracín.
It’s tempting to argue with someone who’s been misinformed by showing them studies and articles that prove them wrong. I understand.
A new study in Scientific Reports, led by social psychologist Dolores Albarracin, who specializes in attitudes and persuasion, and Alexandra Heyman-Nash Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, finds that “avoiding” misinformation puts it right in the face. Reveal from.
This method requires you to consider the conclusion you want your audience to reach — are vaccines safe, or should genetically modified (GM) foods be supported? — and what your audience may not have thought. No positive facts support these conclusions.
Strategies to Avoid False Alarms
Debunking falsehoods with contrary facts can help change people’s beliefs about falsehoods, but it’s not easy. If you repeat false information to correct it, you run the risk of that false information sticking in people’s minds or alienating them if they feel attacked.
In this paper, Albarracín — Director of Science of Science Communication at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) and faculty at the Annenberg School for Communication, School of Nursing, and Department of Psychology — and co-author Christopher, former APPC postdoctoral fellow, Calabrese, now an assistant professor at Clemson University, proposes bypassing as a new way to address the consequences of misinformation.
Bypassing strategies involve identifying conclusions such as “vaccine is safe” and figuring out how to reinforce that conclusion with accurate information that does not directly refute the misinformed claim.
For example, to circumvent the idea that vaccines are harmful to health, you can emphasize the positive impact vaccines have had around the world, such as the significant reduction in child mortality. That alone can enhance the conclusion that vaccines are desirable without confronting the person with facts and figures that refute their false beliefs about vaccines.
“Fear that vaccines will cause autism may be one of the beliefs that shapes people’s attitudes toward vaccines,” says Albarracin, who is also director of Annenberg’s Social Action Lab. You can change people’s minds by paying attention to the positive things. “
Compensation and Bypass
For this study, Albarracín and Calabrese conducted three experiments to test the effectiveness of this strategy.
In the first two experiments, participants read an article that falsely claimed that a newly developed GM corn product caused severe allergic reactions.
Some participants then read articles that challenge previous articles through facts and alternate explanations (correction of incorrect information). Others bypass misinformation by reading articles highlighting the positive benefits of GM foods, such as their role in saving bees and ending global hunger.
As a control, some participants did not receive the second article and others read a second article on an unrelated subject. In a third experiment, we tested another misinformation article. One article erroneously claimed that GM corn promoted tumor growth in rats.
result
During each experiment, researchers measured participants’ attitudes toward policies restricting the production of GM foods (marking them as good or bad, helpful or unhelpful), and their intentions to support these policies. Did.
They found that both diversions and modifications led to decreased support for GM food restrictions, suggesting that they mitigated the initial impact of misinformation that GM foods cause allergies. The results were not positive, supporting GM’s attitudes toward and intentions to support restrictions.
We live in a world where misinformation spreads like wildfire. Bypassing is a tool policymakers and influencers should use to combat this misinformation, researchers say.
“We feel the pressure to go out and debunk misinformation, but we can also reinforce other beliefs and examine misinformation within people’s wider belief systems,” Albarracín said. says. “By detouring, we can work from the perspective of what conclusion we want, emphasizing the beliefs that support the conclusion, rather than just focusing on refuting misinformation.”
Original: Instead of arguing head-on with misinformation, try to “bypass” it
Than: University of Pennsylvania | Clemson University
