Today, information effortlessly transmits across time and places through media that are overly accessible. From political propaganda and a spectrum of headlines taking flight from the showbiz industry to health-related misconceptions, we find ourselves ready to dive into pools of confusion upon immediate consideration of any arising news. To address its consequences, however, it is important to focus on why, despite facing facts, it becomes difficult for a group of people to adopt a rational approach firsthand.
Susceptibility to Misinformation
To help identify the reasons, it is important to research “susceptibility to misinformation,” why it spreads, and what causes it to develop into a concept that persists. It is also important for an individual to note that false information is not only “false” and “inaccurate,” but also misleading to an unknown extent. According to research, false information is difficult to detect. One of the many reasons why is our response to stimuli. Our first step after acquiring a piece of information is usually trying to “make it make sense.” This primary action of ours leads us to base our future actions on that very detail. For instance: 1. How vocal we are going to be about it on a social media platform, and 2. What side of the story or group we choose to support and be represented by. However, amid this course of action, the possibility of this news being entirely, mostly, or particularly inaccurate is often thoroughly neglected. This is where the psychology of misinformation kicks in as a justification when we choose emotion or impulsivity over evaluation.
The Role of Source and Emotion
Optimally, what qualifies as the initiator of misinformation has a great deal to do with the source of it. We, as individuals, tend to consider ourselves good judges of what does and does not qualify as a credible source. This, paired with the ratio of emotional content in the given information, diverts our brain to obey feelings and instincts and not resort to rational analysis. The intensity with which this piece of information strikes emotions like fear, rage, or excitement has a lot to do with how we react to it, that is, the magnitude with which we believe it. Secondly, an individual’s general likes and dislikes, the “grouping” to which they belong, and whether the false information originates in-group or out-group, shapes their perception of it. One is more likely to blindly trust such information if they find that it opposes those they oppose. Thirdly, repetition of information plays a huge part in how true it is thought to be. The more it is mentioned and presented, the more likely people are to believe it.
Age and Social Media Influence
Furthermore, age tends to be another factor in one’s ability to identify misinformation. An older adult may face a lower probability of falling prey to misinformation than a younger one would. However, while an older adult may identify inaccuracies in something they hear from a younger group of people, they may also be much more likely to share false information on social media platforms, especially Facebook and WhatsApp! The accessibility of these platforms and their provided ease in rapid publication and peer-to-peer sharing of news has made it convenient for ordinary users to distribute potentially false pieces of information among a large audience. The algorithms behind these applications, which track user engagement to prioritize what is shown, further favor similar content. This results in individuals reaching concrete and unchallenged conclusions that give birth to confusion and division. Amid this confusion, it is forgotten that just because something has a possibility of occurring, does not mean it truly has occurred.
The Impact of Misinformation During COVID-19
One major example of the colossal impact misinformation can create comes from the COVID-19 era. Around 29% of randomly selected videos on TikTok with coronavirus hashtags contained significant levels of misinformation. This sort of information has continued to translate into health-concerning behaviors. Common misconceptions regarding the hazards linked to the COVID-19 vaccine led many people to develop reluctance in getting vaccinated. For example, a news headline mentioning “a ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after getting a COVID-19 vaccine” was not technically false, provided that the doctor was previously healthy, did receive a COVID vaccine, and did indeed die two weeks later. However, the headline held the vaccine accountable for the doctor’s demise. Hence, it is said, “most misinformation is not fact-checked and is usually not completely false but rather is manipulative or misleading in some way.”
Conclusion
All in all, it is safe to say that misinformation originates from a delicate bunch of roots called “super-spreaders,” which grows into a large tree when watered by the power of social media!