Many things have defined 2020, but the way in which misinformation has distorted our understanding of, and response to, COVID-19 has been especially prominent.  Various hypotheses exist to explain why misinformation is so rampant, from government interference to cybercrime, but new research from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management suggests the real culprit is somewhat closer to home.

The researchers were studying a Colombian government microsavings program to encourage banking among low-income Colombians and stumbled upon the role the way people talk to each other plays in the spread of misinformation.

It was a program that initially attracted high enthusiasm from people, but it wasn’t long before that enthusiasm waned significantly, even as their financial health was improving as a result of membership and participation in the biweekly savings group meetings.  This resulted in the paradoxical outcome that a program that had achieved a 300% boost in personal savings had experienced a 10% fall in enthusiasm and support.

Word of mouth

To understand why this was, the researchers examined the activity in the meetings themselves, and found that participants were often sharing negative personal stories and second-hand anecdotes about the financial sector.  Banks were ripping them off, for example, or neighbors were being defrauded.  These accounts were gradually undermining the program.

The researchers believe that this word of mouth was effective because it was countering the abstract and theoretical messaging provided by the government with very personal stories.  They suggest similarities exist with areas such as vaccinations, where public health messaging is ignored by certain groups.

It’s common for programs such as this to use fairly neutral messaging in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.  This can create problems, however, as we’re not passive recipients of such abstract information.  Instead, people will put meat on those bones and will pay particular attention to any negative stories we hear.

A positive angle

Of course, these stories can also veer in a positive direction, and indeed a few of the microsavings groups were able to persuade others to change their opinions by correcting misunderstandings with facts or otherwise championing the program.  Actively showing fellow community-members how to set things up and utilize the services was as usual as notions such as “positive deviance” would suggest.

These champions within local groups were found to be crucial in garnering support across the country, especially when accompanied by tailored messaging to specific contexts found in these local communities.

The researchers believe their findings also have lessons for how we all treat neutral information with a degree of cynicism, yet more personal stories with great credence.

“When we think about fake news, we tend to think of people purposefully distorting information. But we may be overlooking our own tendencies to humanize raw facts and potentially contribute to these overall negative impressions,” they conclude.