FYI Stopping the spread: Misinformation & Disinformation

The 3M State of Science Index 2022 results released in April show that people around the world believe there is widespread misinformation and disinformation, on social media (85%) and traditional media (72%), regardless of subject matter. The data reveals that survey respondents think there will be consequences if we cannot trust news stories about science. Misinformation can indeed be problematic as it can manifest itself as a belief which is subsequently hard to change. Moreover, the repetition of false beliefs, repeated inadvertently or with intent, make the information feel truer - this “illusory truth” can persist despite ample scientific evidence against it.

The gap between what science shows and what people chose to believe, sociologists say, is often about our identity. Science communication that typically relies on what is referred to as an information deficit model when responding to misinformation does not yield desired results. ?The model assumes that explanation of the facts should help rectify false beliefs and overcome misinformation. Experts believe that the information deficit model ignores the cognitive, social and affective drivers of attitude formation and truth judgements. These factors include not just political, religious, cultural beliefs but also moral value judgements and lived experiences.

There are reasons to ignore or reject scientific facts despite scientific consensus on topics. This phenomenon of science rejection is not attributable to being uninformed but also includes factors such as fears, identity expression, conspiratorial mentality, and motivated reasoning — reasoning driven more by personal or moral values than objective evidence. Thus, to understand the psychology of misinformation and how it might be countered, research suggests that it is essential to consider the cognitive architecture and social context of individual decision makers.

Inside information

Experts have also proposed that if the objective is to have the public be informed, and avoid being misinformed, the skills that are needed go further than scientific literacy which can be described as “familiarity with the enterprise and practice of science.” They propose that science literacy now needs to encompass the entire what is referred to as “science information cycle.” This would include the knowledge of not just how science information is produced but also how media repackages and reports and how the public interprets and forms opinion on this information.

The decline in science journalism has had an impact, as well as decreasing support for science, that often prompts scientific organizations to use mass media to promote their research. Mass media also has a role to play in correcting misinformation however many assert that structural challenges with evolution of media has made it more difficult to stay strictly objective. The authors argue that in addition to science literacy and media literacy, individuals need some level of cognitive science literacy as well, which is an awareness of their own individual biases as they evaluate science information and media and make informed decisions.

In addition to the focus on individuals, experts also suggest a closer examination of the impact at group and societal level for remedying the problem because the individual behavior is linked to the context provided by “social networks, information ecologies and other macro-level variables.” The political, social and cultural environment in conjunction with mindset can facilitate filter bubbles and echo-chambers that can be breeding grounds for misinformation. Digital inequity and structural and systemic constraints can also further widen the gap between informed, uninformed and leave many vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation campaigns.

Nuggets of Information

There is consensus – there is no simple solution to the complex problem of science misinformation. A systems level approach with multipronged strategies from different vantage points are being suggested as individual beliefs are influenced by group-level social networks, which in turn are shaped by societal factors. In addition to digital literacy for newcomers to the internet, it is important to teach the next generation critical skills that can help them inquire, evaluate facts objectively, conclude the best possible solutions and identify misinformation – especially around Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) that involve science and society. Socio-cultural factors often play a strong role in how people consider scientific information and their decision-making — even when the relevant science is well-established.

Technology too has a role to play with advanced techniques such as deep learning and artificial intelligence that can help understand the mechanics of misinformation. It is evident that solution-sets and strategies need to address all the key facets of this problem: FYI

Facts and the contextual factors

Youth and adult literacy – socio-scientific, media and digital

Individual and group and societal dynamics

Given the sociology of trust, the integral role of social sciences in science communication and skills training, and need for deep understanding of psychological drivers, it is apparent that the sciences will need to converge in order to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation and fight for reliable information. FYI.