By Shonnmharen - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=82966830
During the pandemic, I have been working towards a Masters degree in psychology. For my social psychology class, I wrote my final paper on the dangers of fake news. Given the current political landscape, I felt it was a timely piece to publish. May it provide insight, understanding, action, and accountability.
Addressing Fake News: Perspectives from Social Psychology, by Candice Holdorf
Written August 1, 2020.
In the age of the Internet, it can seem like one can access the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Whether it’s a laptop, a phone, a tablet, or even a smart watch, the world wide web is always available to give people more of what they seem to be craving these days – information. Take, for example, social media: according to the Pew Research Center, one in five people get their news from social media – more than from print newspapers (Shearer, 2018). And online news sites – which have been growing in popularity over the decade – are only second to television in popularity, which has been declining in use over the decade (Shearer, 2018). With news more accessible from a seemingly endless number of sources, the barrier of entry for anyone who wants to share something on the Internet seems to be virtually unlimited. While that might appear like a victory for free speech and freedom of expression, it can also be a double-edged sword when used for nefarious reasons.
“Fake news,” i.e. false information that is presented as actual news using information and headlines written in a journalistic manner, but lacking the same journalistic integrity, credibility of sources, and editorial review, has become a problem of growing concern over the years (Lazer et al., 2018). More than simply presenting wrong information, it can be manipulated to prey upon human emotion – swaying the course of public opinion on vital public health issues such as climate change or vaccines, and even threatening the very fabric of democracy. For example, in the three months leading up to the U.S. Presidential election in 2016, the top 20 fake election-related news stories were shared more times and had more interaction than the top 20 true election-related news stories (Tsipursky et al., 2018). And fake stories that were pro-Trump were shared 30 million times, while false stories that painted Hillary Clinton in a negative light were shared 7.6 million times (Tsipursky et al., 2018). While it might seem that fake news is an issue primarily fueled by conservatives – and there does appear to be overlap between false content propagated by the Trump administration and Russian propaganda (Blake, 2020) – both liberals and conservatives are capable of partisan bias equally (Ditto et al., 2018). These statistics alone highlight a very serious problem: that fake news – both misinformation (false information) and disinformation (false information that is intentionally presented to mislead the viewer) – are being used as mental and emotional weapons against fair and free elections (Vosoughi et al., 2018).
However, fake news cannot be written off as purely a cognitive or analytical failing, as tempting as that might be. Simply informing the public, via Snopes or other fact-checking sites, that content is fake news doesn’t appear to be enough. Not only is it emotionally laborious and time-consuming to fact check, at times it might make someone more inclined to push back and solidify their stance within their own view if they don’t trust these fact-checking sites. This can often happen within the framework of naïve realism – where one thinks they see the world from an objective perspective and anyone who disagrees must be ignorant, morally incompetent, or biased. Naïve realism is often coupled with a sense of self that is both fixed and morally justified in its beliefs (Ross et al., 2010). This is why it’s important that we, as a society, learn to identify fake news, understand the social psychology that makes it so popular, and take measured steps to help curb its spread.
Using false or misleading news as a means to manipulate the minds of people and promote a nefarious political and social agenda isn’t necessarily new. One can simply Google “yellow journalism” to find examples during the turn of the 20th century of fake news, which thrust the United States into the Spanish-American War. However, with the advent of the Internet, and even more so, the popularity of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, these false stories are reaching people at rapid speed. Research indicates that false news travels at a faster rate – meaning it is shared more and receives more engagement – than true news; and false political news is often one of the fastest pieces of content that is shared (Vosoughi et al., 2018).
Using data collected from news stories shared on Twitter between 2006 to 2017, studies show that false news typically elicits responses of fear, disgust, anger, and surprise, while true news typically elicits joy and trust (Paschen, 2019; Vosoughi et al., 2018). Research into strong emotions like fear and disgust indicates that this type of emotionally manipulative content can be more psychologically jarring and therefore make the reader more likely to sit up, take notice, and recall the information (Paschen, 2019). By preying on strong emotions such as fear, anger, and disgust, propagators of fake news don’t have to rely solely on AI bots in order to ensure that the fake news is spread – the adrenalized nervous system of collective humanity takes care of that. Fake news becomes an intellectual weapon that can cost lives, as in the case of needless war, climate change, and conspiracy theories claiming COVID-19 is a hoax.
What makes people so vulnerable to fake news and the conspiracy theories they often spread? For starters, it appears that there can be a kernel of truth in conspiracy theories. One needn’t look further than the horrific experiments on Black men at the Tuskegee Institute, the unjust FBI sting against civil rights organizations like the Black Panthers during COINTELPRO, the ravages of McCarthyism, or the Watergate scandal to discover that the political, healthcare, and journalistic institutions that are supposed to have humanity’s best interest at heart often do not uphold the values they have sworn to protect (Van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018). It appears that this mistrust in mainstream media sources – often touted as the bar for journalistic standards – has increased, especially in the age where social media is now fast becoming a primary source of news. According to research, trust in mainstream sources of media was at an all-time low in 2016, with only 51% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans putting faith in reputable news sources (Lazer et al., 2018).
This lack of faith in systems – often for justifiable reasons – can be used against people. One way this is done is by fostering a belief that puts certain people in an “in” group and demonizing or dehumanizing those in the “out” group, i.e. affective polarization (Van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018). By using a social psychological tool that further creates an “us vs. them” divide between people, it’s often easier to prey upon bias and prejudice to cause further discrimination against certain groups of people who are usually being exploited by the instigating party for personal gain or profit. The “in-group, out-group” tactic can also be used as a distraction from the underlying motives driving the instigating party’s false accusations. This can be seen in stark relief during the FBI’s COINTELPRO program. By instilling fear of Black Americans in the heart of white U.S. citizens, it blocked the progress being made by the civil rights movement and kept those in positions of power and privilege – usually white males – in their place.
The pull of being recognized as part of the “in” group and even lauded as a leader within that group is also a driving factor in sharing fake news. Many people want to be seen as the first to discover content that is new or novel so they can get social approval in the form of likes or shares (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Unfortunately, this also means that people are less likely to slow down and actually take in the information and do due diligence to check the veracity of what they are sharing – further driving a wedge between “in” groups and “out” groups and setting the stage for groupthink, a concept where people blindly follow the overarching ideals and beliefs of group leaders (Ross et al., 2010).
In these instances, using Intergroup Contact Theory as a means for breaking down bias and prejudice can potentially help one be less susceptible to fake news that targets groups of people. The theory, first proposed by Gordon Allport, states that connections between seemingly disparate groups of people can often reduce bias and prejudice. The Robber Cave experiment also produced evidence that showed that if these groups of people are working towards a common goal, this can decrease bias and animosity even more (Sherif et al., 1988).
But what if the fake news content or conspiracy theory doesn’t appear to be directly related to any “out” group? For instance, currently in the age of COVID-19 there are conspiracy theories abounding on social media suggesting that COVID-19 is either a hoax meant to instill fear in the population, making people more susceptible to mind control, or it’s a real bioweapon unleashed upon humanity so “deep state” officials can implant trackers on people via vaccine. Some theories even say that it’s a means to keep people in their houses so pedophile rings can continue to operate and Hollywood and social elites can harvest the adrenalized blood of children (Breland & Rangarajan, 2020). In these cases, the “out” group consists of unidentified boogiemen who are infringing upon personal rights and propagating pedophilia and human trafficking.
This is a particularly nefarious tactic because the enemy is a faceless, nameless mass of people known as “elites” and the injustices being brought to light are, in fact, very real issues. The invasion of privacy came to light recently when news leaked that the National Security Agency (NSA) was illegally tapping the phone lines of U.S. citizens. Additionally, pedophilia and human trafficking are, unfortunately, societal and human rights issues that destroy millions of lives every day. Therefore, to speak out against fake news that appears to condemn such atrocities could make the one speaking against them appear as if they are in favor of the morally deplorable issues of privacy invasion, child sexual abuse, and human trafficking.
This is when the social psychological notion of conformity works against revealing the truth. Normative social influence suggests that people will behave like other people in order to be liked (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). So, in order to look like a good person, one might be less likely to speak out against such content – lest they look as if they are in favor of certain unsavory practices. Additionally, informational social influence – which suggests that people look to how others behave in order to know how to behave – also provides insight into how easily one can be swayed against their own better judgment, as suggested by Solomon Asch’s experiments where people made decisions against their better knowledge (Ross et al., 2010).
However, research indicates that conformity might also come into play when it comes to helping curb the spread of fake news. Pennycook and Rand used data from populations ranking their trust in certain news sources and found that algorithmically up-ranked content – that is content that immediately rises to the top of news feeds because it comes from a more reliable source – could be a potentially effective way of drowning out the noise of fake news (Pennycook & Rand, 2019, PNAS). Furthermore, another study found that expert up-ranked content along with user up-ranked articles (but not necessarily user up-ranked sources) could help curb the spread of fake news, as readers might take the informational social influence cue from authority, i.e. expert up-ranking, and peers demonstrating what is socially acceptable, i.e. user up-ranking of articles (Kim et al., 2019).
An anonymous user up-ranking system could also help counter the bystander effect, where large groups of people are less likely to take decisive action on something they see as wrong because they believe someone else will handle it or there is nothing they can do (Darley & Latane, 1968). In the case of up-ranking, a system is in place that encourages group participation and also would ensure anonymity, potentially making it feel safer to participate in publicly.
One does also run the risk of backlash against up-ranking if there is already a severe mistrust in anything popular or publicly lauded. From here, the hindrance to ensuring that truthful news gets shared is usually confirmation bias, which is the tendency to only believe ideas and content that conform with one’s current world view (Ross et al., 2010). When one comes up against content that doesn’t necessarily conform to the bias, one can experience cognitive dissonance, i.e. an uncomfortable sensation in the mind and body when an opposing point of view comes up against one’s firmly held thoughts and beliefs (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).
Some of the tactics one might use when they come up against cognitive dissonance might be to attack and defend, search for new and supporting information that confirms one’s point of view, and ultimately, change one’s attitude on a subject completely to avoid further dissonance – thus over time making them more less aware that there is dissonance in the first place (Taddicken & Wolff, 2019).
In this instance, one might benefit from an intervention in public high school systems where cognitive dissonance is not only welcomed but also encouraged. This intervention could take the form of a required class that operates as a sort of “empathy debate.” From the outside, it might look like the opposite of a typical debate, where one is supposed to pick a position and then collect all evidence in favor of it. In this case, the practice could be to defend one’s position and then immediately afterwards, publicly defend the opposite position. It could be an exercise in open-mindedness – if not in an intellectual sense, at least perhaps from an emotional perspective as it can help a student understand psychologically and emotionally why the other side thinks the way that they do. It might also reduce the common cognitive dissonance reaction to attack and defend because the student has to remember that they will soon be defending all opposing points of view.
This “empathy debate” intervention would also be a key player in helping to sharpen one’s analytical skills. While social psychology and the power of the social media environment certainly play a huge role in the proliferation of fake news, research using a Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) indicates that shoring up critical thinking skills can also gird one from being take in by fake news (Pennycook & Rand, 2019, Cognition). This intervention could partner with other analytical and cognitive approaches to the problem, such as digital literacy courses akin to the one at the University of Washington, Calling Bullshit, which focuses exactly on how to spot fake news in the media (Waldrop, 2017).
Another way that this “empathy debate” could help reduce the proliferation of fake news is that it empowers individuals to seek out information and build resilience in the face of information that does not corroborate with what was previously thought. Indeed, that willingness to change one’s mind when presented with new evidence is how progress is often made. That feeling of personal empowerment and control over one’s mind and life is strongly correlated with reducing the tendency to believe conspiracy theories (Whitson et al., 2019). That is, promotion-focused thinking – a belief system that places value on growth, aspirations, and advancement – typically leads to less conspiratorial thinking than a prevention-focused mindset, i.e. one that places value on duties, obligations, and security (Whitson et al., 2019).
Finally, the “empathy debate” could also serve as a way to curb fake news via the inoculation theory, which posits that hearing a smaller, slightly unbelievable fake news story first will help prevent further indoctrination with more egregious stories later – similar to how a vaccine inoculates one against physical illness (van der Linden et al., 2017). By actually hearing and addressing multiple perspectives on timely issues within a classroom setting, it can help a student be better prepared to think critically and react less emotionally to an issue when it’s encountered on social media. Because the issue – or at least some aspect of the issue – might also already have been addressed in the intervention, it could provide a preventive boost that can help protect one from being sucked in by misinformation or disinformation.
But more than simply teaching people what fake news is, we as a society must also model how we address fake news and take a stand on combating it. Interventions such as the Pro-Truth Pledge, a public pledge that has a step-by-step code of conduct regarding sharing content, helps identify public figures, policymakers, and researchers who are committed to upholding a certain standard of truth and helps keep them accountable to their word if they misstep (Tsipursky et al., 2018).
The Pro-Truth Pledge is more than simply a vote for truth; it is a living document that provides a clear plan of action for everyone, public figure and private citizen alike, to combat fake news (Tsipursky et al., 2018). The pledge includes addressing aspects of social psychology such as confirmation bias, since the pledge asks participants to share the whole truth – even the parts that might contradict one’s personal opinion. It also challenges the idea of naïve realism because those who sign the pledge vow to honor the truth someone else shares, even if one disagrees, and one must be willing to reevaluate one’s position and realign with the truth, if necessary. Finally, the pledge asks people to educate other people who might have incorrect information and even celebrate when someone – including oneself – changes a position or retracts a previous stance (Tsipursky et al., 2018).
These potential solutions and interventions highlight the very important role that teachers and educators have in combating fake news. Teaching people the cognitive skills for spotting fake news and approaching a subject with an analytical mindset is important. But what’s becoming clearer is that teaching social skills is just as, if not more, important when battling fake news. Teaching empathy skills can help reduce bias and prejudice and possibly reduce risk of groupthink and inaction due to the bystander effect. Teaching emotional coping strategies is also vital, so one can learn to sit in the discomfort of cognitive dissonance when faced with conflicting data and build resilience if and when evidence becomes clear that a position is no longer valid. Empowering people in their lives so they feel a sense of ownership and control in how they live can also be a strategy for curbing fake news. And powerful leadership is also a good way to teach, as can be seen by those who are promoting the Pro-Truth Pledge.
Psychologists and researchers also play a role in helping to curb fake news. By understanding the social psychological issues that propagate the spread of fake news and alerting the public to these tactics, they can potentially inoculate the public against these tactics before they suck in people. Policymakers also play a role demanding accountability from major online platforms that allow this content to spread without check. Indeed, society is beginning to see more and more accountability from Twitter – which has suspended and deleted several accounts linked to sharing harmful fake content – and Facebook, which has started labeling false content and removing viral pieces that are blatant lies. While questions around free speech do arise in this context, this is where policymakers can start to parse out clearly what is and is not fake news and how to mete out proper repercussions when it is shared.
While one could potentially track the very first piece of fake news all the way back to the first time a human told a lie, it’s clear that the Internet age is now creating an environment where fake news can spread rampantly like never before. While a lie can appear seemingly innocuous, fake news becomes a destructive weapon against human rights when in the hands of unscrupulous figures in positions of power, such as oligarchs, certain politicians and corporations, and billionaires looking to continue hoarding their wealth. While organizations such as the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project and Global Witness are working not only to help identify fake news but also take down the organizations that are promoting it, we as individuals must continue to do our part to recognize fake news and call it out when we see it. For everyday people, understanding the social psychology behind what makes fake news so popular will help us do our individual part in helping curb its spread.
References
Blake, A (2020, June 9). The frequent overlap between Trump’s conspiracy theories and Russian propaganda. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/06/09/frequent-overlap-between-trumps-conspiracy-theories-russian-propaganda/
Breland, A. & Rangarajan, S. (2020, June 23). How the coronavirus spread Qanon. Mother Jones. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/06/qanon-coronavirus/
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. doi:55.090902.142015
Darley, J. M., & Latane, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377-383. doi:10.1037/h0025589
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2018). At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(2), 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210. doi:10.1037/h0041593
Kim, A., Moravec, P. L., & Dennis, A. R. (2019). Combating fake news on social media with source ratings: the effects of user and expert reputation ratings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 931-968. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1628921
Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., Metzger, M. J., Nyhan, B., Pennycook, G., Rothschild, D., Schudson, M., Sloman, S. A., Sunstein, C. R., Thorson, E. A., Watts, D. J., & Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094-1096. doi: 10.1126/science.aao2998
Paschen, J. (2019). Investigating the emotional appeal of fake news using artificial intelligence and human contributions. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(2), 223-233. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2018-2179
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. PNAS, 116(7), 2521-2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116
Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Ward, A. (2010). History of social psychology: Insights, challenges, and contributions to theory and application. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 3-50. doi:10.1002/9780470561119
Shearer, E. (2018, December 10). Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U. S. as a news source. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., Hood, W. R., Sherif, C. W., & White, C. (1988). Summary and conclusions. The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation, 199-214. doi:10.1007/s11206-004-0704-7
Taddicken, M. & Wolff, L. (2020). ‘Fake news’ in science communication: emotions and strategies of coping with dissonance online. Media & Communication, 8(1), 206-217. doi: 10.17645/mac.v8i1.2495
Tsipursky, G., Votta, F., & Roose, K.M. (2018). Fighting fake news and post-truth politics with behavioral science: the pro-truth pledge. Behavioral and Social Issues, 27, 47-70. doi: 10.5210/bsi.v.27i0.9127
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
Van Prooijen, J. & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 897-908. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. doi:10.1126/science.aap9559
Waldrop, M. M. (2017). The genuine problem of fake news. PNAS, 114(52), 12631-12634. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719005114
Whitson, J. A., Kim, J., Wang, C. S., Menon, T., & Webster, B. D. (2019). Regulatory focus and conspiratorial perceptions: the importance of personal control. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(1), 3-15. doi:10.1177/0146167218775070
