Read on Twitter
One common q I hear is whether there is an science-based way to reduce the sharing of COVID-19 misinfo on social media. And the answer is YES! This interesting new pre-print by @Traffic_Science @UlliEcker and team puts it to the test. /thread + gifs https://twitter.com/PsyArXivBot/status/1311105522196770816?s=20">https://twitter.com/PsyArXivB...
This study with 680 US residents that finds that people who are exposed to typical misinformation about dietary treatments for COVID-19 are more likely to share that false info on social media. For far, not very surprising or useful.
But, in *perhaps* good news, they show that if people are presented with a typical "diplomatic" refutation by an expert - the kind of response to misinfo we often see in the media - that does signficantly reduce the likelihood that people will share it.
HOWEVER - and this is the useful bit - using a scientifically tested response, called a "strong refutation" in this study, is much more effective.
This means that experts in the health and medical sciences, and public health officials should get across the findings from psychology and science communicaiton quickly if they really want to stop the COVID-19 "infodemic" - the viral spread of virus bullshit.
And yes, that actually is an appropriate academic term for part of this infodemic https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-018-0025-4">https://link.springer.com/article/1...
So what is this scientifically tested refutation technique? Well it consists of several actions. These include 1. highlighting the lack of credibility in the source (if true),
2. Providing a quick factual explanation to fill in the gaps in people& #39;s mental models,
3. Drawing attention to the deceptive strategies used by proponents of misinformation such as using appeals to nature or illusions of causality, and
4. Make the difference between the false and reliable information more salient in our language.
At the moment we don& #39;t have a great deal of certainty about which of these kinds of things are most effective, so I would use any of them that may apply to any given circumstances in the order of argument strength for your particular audience.
