The Covid-19 pandemic has created an understandable desire to stay on top of information as much as possible, whether about the social, economic, or health implications of the virus. New research from MIT highlights how this desire can further the spread of misinformation.
The study finds that our desire to share information online often gets in the way of our ability to accurately assess that information for accuracy. The findings emerged from experiments that saw false news headlines presented to two groups of people, the first of whom were asked whether they would share the stories on social media, and the other to evaluate the stories for accuracy. Those in the sharing group were 32% more likely to say they’d share the story than they would say the story was accurate.
“There does appear to be a disconnect between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions,” the researchers say. “People are much more discerning when you ask them to judge the accuracy, compared to when you ask them whether they would share something or not.”
On the positive side, the experiments suggest that a degree of reflection can be hugely valuable, as those participants who were able to think critically, especially if they had some scientific knowledge, were less likely to share misinformation. The researchers also discovered a solution to over-sharing, as when volunteers had to rate the accuracy of even a single story every time they logged on, the quality of their sharing increased.
“The idea is, if you nudge them about accuracy at the outset, people are more likely to be thinking about the concept of accuracy when they later choose what to share. So then they take accuracy into account more when they make their sharing decisions,” the researchers say.
Spreading the news
The researchers assessed a number of additional factors to try and explain the various tendencies of the participants. For instance, they asked each volunteer to complete a six-item Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to gauge how likely they are to analyze information rather than rely on their gut instinct. The test also measured their scientific knowledge and looked at the proximity of each person to local Covid outbreaks.
This process revealed that those who scored higher on the test, and knew more about science, tended to rate headlines more accurately and therefore share fewer false stories. It’s a finding that the researchers believe illustrates how our assessment of the news relies less on our ideology and more on our cognitive habits.
“A lot of people have a very cynical take on social media and our moment in history, that we’re post-truth and no one cares about the truth any more,” they say. “Our evidence suggests it’s not that people don’t care; it’s more that they’re distracted.”
The data does suggest that we have no more propensity to take care and attention with what we share in relation to Covid-19 than we do with anything else on social media. Indeed, the researchers believe that the seriousness of the topic may even make people less able to accurately analyze content.
“Part of the issue with health and this pandemic is that it’s very anxiety-inducing,” they say. “Being emotionally aroused is another thing that makes you less likely to stop and think carefully.”
What’s more, the very nature of social media doesn’t help matters, with a rapid assessment of content encouraged, with users rewarded for posting eye-catching news that attracts followers and retweets. The accuracy of what is shared is almost secondary.
“There is just something more systemic and fundamental about the social media context that distracts people from accuracy,” the researchers conclude. “I think part of it is that you’re getting this instantaneous social feedback all the time. Every time you post something, you immediately get to see how many people liked it. And that really focuses your attention on: How many people are going to like this? Which is different from: How true is this?”
