Read on Twitter
I& #39;ve been asked a few times recently about how best to debunk misinformation. We& #39;ve started work on v2 of the popular (but now outdated) Debunking Handbook, but for now, I thought I& #39;d share a few main points, taken from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0210746">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/a... by @Jess_Paynter et al.
A thread
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Down pointing backhand index" aria-label="Emoji: Down pointing backhand index">
A thread
Corrections are more effective if they do not just communicate that a piece of information is false (e.g., a simple retraction that a practice is not evidence-based), but also detail why it is false, and what led people to believe it in the first place.
1/n
1/n
A careful dissection of incorrect arguments can help promote truth. Detailed refutations are more effective than plain, stripped-down retractions or the provision of factual information alone.
2/n
2/n
A powerful correction ideally places emphasis on detailing facts and evidence in support of them. This is especially important if a piece of misinformation carries a specific function in a person’s mental model of an event or causality.
3/n
3/n
For example, if a person falsely believes in an autism epidemic brought about by vaccinations, then it is crucial to refute the misinformation and to concurrently provide alternative information to fill the “gap” created by the correction -
4/n
4/n
- in this example, that the observed rise in autism rates is mostly due to broadened diagnostic criteria and heightened awareness of the condition.
5/n
5/n
Moreover, it is important to design refutations that use simple language to facilitate understanding, and an empathetic, non-confrontational tone.
6/n
6/n
There are six specific, additional elements thought to boost the effectiveness of a correction:
7/n
7/n
1. Source credibility—corrections are more effective if they come from a person or institution that is high in perceived credibility. The primary driver of this effect appears to be the source’s perceived trustworthiness rather than expertise.
8/n
8/n
So anything that builds trust will help you be more effective at debunking down the track.
9/n
9/n
2. Self-affirmation interventions make potentially worldview-inconsistent corrections “easier to swallow”—affirming a person’s values makes them more open to worldview-inconsistent information, presumably by fostering resilience to the inherent identity threat.
10/n
10/n
3. Social norming—if either an injunctive or a descriptive norm is presented in support of a correction, it should facilitate acceptance of corrective information due to people’s aversion to social extremeness and the associated fear of social exclusion.
11/n
11/n
For example, explaining that the vast majority of people engage in a desired behaviour (descriptive norm), and that it& #39;s the right thing to do in order to achieve a common good (injunctive norm).
12/n
12/n
4. Warning people before exposing them to misinformation puts them cognitively on guard and may prevent them from initially believing the misinformation upon exposure, thus obviating the need for retrospective re-evaluation when receiving the correction.
13/n
13/n
So don& #39;t say "Myth or Fact? Vaccines cause autism [...explanation...] No they don& #39;t."
Say: "It& #39;s a MYTH that there& #39;s a link between vaccines and autism. The FACT is that vaccines are safe. [...explanation]"
(Btw, turns out the order of fact/myth - myth/fact doesn& #39;t matter)
14/n
Say: "It& #39;s a MYTH that there& #39;s a link between vaccines and autism. The FACT is that vaccines are safe. [...explanation]"
(Btw, turns out the order of fact/myth - myth/fact doesn& #39;t matter)
14/n
Warnings may also boost strategic monitoring and memory processes that can prevent reliance on misinformation even when it is activated by relevant cues at a later time.
15/n
15/n
5. Graphical representations can attract attention, facilitate information processing and retention, and quantify or disambiguate the corrective evidence, thus reducing the recipient’s ability to counter-argue inconvenient information. You know, 1 picture, 1000 words.
16/n
16/n
6. Salience of the core corrective message can enhance its effectiveness, presumably based on a link between enhanced fluency of processing and information impact.
17/n
17/n
One factor that can enhance salience is making sure you repeat the misinformation (but once only!) when you refute it, contrary to earlier advice. But yeah, people need to know what it is you are correcting so they can co-activate misinformation and correction and update.
18/n
18/n
Note: this is not a fully comprehensive list. Depending on context, other factors will play a role - for example it can be important to highlight an expert consensus - and other information literacy interventions (including prebunking or inoculation) definitely have a place!
19/n
19/n
Thanks for engaging discussions @CaulfieldTim @JulieLeask @Briony_Swire @STWorg @johnfocook @Sander_vdLinden @butlerlucy97 !
20/20
20/20
