An overview of nine types of misinformation interventions that includes their conceptualization, target, scope, and summary of empirical evidence supporting effectiveness.
Category: Misinformation 101
-
Auditing Entertainment Traps on YouTube: How Do Recommendation Algorithms Pull Users Away from News
YouTube’s algorithm recommends entertainment over news content, which can lead people away from information or learning.
-
Can we blame social media for polarization? Counter-evidence against filter bubble claims during the COVID-19 pandemic
Mainstream media, and not social media, might be the more significant driver of polarization among partisan publics
-
Internet/Misinformation Hygiene Resources
Internet/Misinformation Hygiene Resources
This resource was created in response to requests from multiple members. It is meant as a short and easy-to-consult document to help you identify misinformation and discuss strategies to address it both online and offline.
A more thorough resource bank can be found here:
How to make yourself less vulnerable to misinformation
Curious about how vulnerable you could be to misinformation? Take this misinformation susceptibility test:
An instructional toolkit to build resilience against misinformation:
How to critically evaluate information and content you encounter online:
- What questions to ask yourself to spot misinformation
- Red Flags to look out for before believing or sharing information online
- Deepfakes and how to identify them (although the technology is evolving very fast)
- Thinking through the filter of the hierarchy of evidence
Be aware of the different misinformation tactics:
- Cherry Picking
- Causal Fallacy
- Firehose of Falsehood
- Slippery Slope
- Doubt Mongering
- Ad Hominem
- Impersonation
- Appeal to Nature
- Red Herring
- False Dichotomy
- Astroturfing
- The Persecuted Hero Narrative
- The Galileo Gambit
Be aware of the different ways that data can be misrepresented:
Be aware of common biases and fallacies, which we are all vulnerable to:
Science Literacy (and media literacy) makes us less vulnerable to misinformation:
- How does a scientific paper get published?
- How is funding for science obtained in Canada?
- What are Zombie papers?
- How do clinical trials work?
- Hierarchy of evidence
Facilitating difficult conversations and taking care of your mental health
How to help make conversations on polarizing topics more productive? (can apply both online and in-person):
- Make polarizing conversation more productive
- How to help people get out of misinformation rabbit holes
Sometimes, the best thing to do is to take a break from social media:
Resources, crash courses and guides
What are conspiracy theories, why do we believe in them, and how to tackle them:
- Conspiracy theory crash course
- What drives people to conspiracy theories and extremism, and what to do about it
A guide from the WHO on how to report misinformation online across platforms:
Questions to ask yourself when creating content for social media as an organization
Step by step guides to tackle misinformation
Media literacy is also essential in a changing digital media landscape. Media Smarts has many great educational resources:
Resources for addressing common climate myths:
- Evidence-based answers to hundreds of common climate myths (with basic and intermediate levels of difficulty and translated to dozens of languages)
Peer-reviewed research papers:
The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review
-
An analysis of literacy differences related to the identification and dissemination of misinformation
Those who subjectively perceive their critical thinking skills as strong are those who might struggle to recognition misinformation. In contrast, those with objectively-tested high levels of information and media literacy as well as critical thinking skills, do not often share misinformation.
-
Enhancing misinformation correction: New variants and a combination of awareness training and counter-speech to mitigate belief perseverance bias
Combining both awareness-training (increasing awareness of belief perseverance bias) and “counter-speech” technique (debunking with convincing arguments) showed effectiveness against people’s bias towards previously-established perspectives now shown to be inaccurate.
-
We asked, you answered: Vaccines and Autism
We asked, ”What’s one piece of misinformation you wish would go away?” and y’all had a lot to say!
As part of our Together Against Misinformation campaign, we will be rolling out clear and concise debunks to some of the most persistent myths that frustrate you. Starting with one myth we all wish would go away: Vaccine causes autism.
This sticky myth stems from a fraudulent paper published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and 11 other authors in 1998. The authors, who claimed to have found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, had demonstrably falsified their data and hand-picked their sample of 12 children rather than randomizing it.. They also failed to disclose that they were funded by lawyers who had been engaged by parents in lawsuits against vaccine-producing companies.
As a result, 10 of the 12 original authors of the paper have retracted its interpretation as well as the journal that had published the fraudulent paper. Since then, millions of dollars and years of research have shown no link between vaccines and ASD.
Want to learn more about the campaign and how you could participate? Visit TogetherAgainstMisinformation.com
To learn more:
Autism and Vaccines: Read the Science
If you are interested in learning more about ASD, check this out →
To start – Welcome to the Autistic Community
Sources- Autism Spectrum Disorder | American Psychiatric Association
- What Is Autism Spectrum Disorder? | American Psychiatric Association
- Autism Diagnosis Criteria: DSM-5 | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
- Myths & Facts about Autism Spectrum Disorder | Kennedy Krieger Institute
- About Autism | Autism Ontario
- Race and Sex Bias in the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS-2) and Disparities in Autism Diagnoses | JAMA Network on PubMed Central | April 2022
- What About the Girls? Sex-Based Differences in Autistic Traits and Adaptive Skills | Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders on PubMed Central | May 2019
- What Is the Male-to-Female Ratio in Autism Spectrum Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry on PubMed | June 2017
- Exploring the potential for social networking among people with autism: challenging dominant ideas of ‘friendship’ | Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research | 2015
- The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation, retraction, and fraud | Indian Journal of Psychiatry on PubMed Central | June 2011
- Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence | HealthyChildren.org
- Timeline: Thimerosal in Vaccines (1999-2010) | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
- Autism genetics – an overview | Prenatal Diagnosis | 2017
- Autism presentation in female and Black populations: Examining the roles of identity, theory, and systemic inequalities | Autism on Sage Journals | July 2023
- Ethical challenges in autism genomics: Recommendations for researchers | European Journal of Medical Genetics | 2023
Share our original Tweet!
As part of the Together Against Misinformation campaign, we will be rolling out clear and concise debunks to some of the most persistent myths that frustrate you.
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) September 20, 2024
Starting with one myth we all wish would go away: Vaccines cause autism 👇https://t.co/YpjlzrsHf3#ScienceUpFirst pic.twitter.com/XJ5rzojKhuView our original Instagram Post!
-
KFF Health Misinformation Tracking Poll Pilot
In relation to misinformation, most Americans are situated in a “malleable middle” holding some but not absolute levels of belief in inaccurate information. Misinformation exposures can lead to increased confusion and even “decision paralysis” around individual health decisions. Increased exposure to some media sources such as, for example, One American News Network (OANN) and Newsmax correlated with greater believe in misinformation topics.
-
Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States, 2019
Many cancer cases and deaths present risk factors that have the potential to be modified with preventive initiatives that, for example, reduce cigarette smoking or improve diets.
-
Who reports witnessing and performing corrections on social media in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and France?
Younger populations surveyed in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and France (N=6,068) report being more likely to notice and perform information corrections on social media in comparison to older populations. In total, approximately 50% observed misinformation corrections and 26% performed them. (June 5, 2024)
-
The consequences of misinformation concern on media consumption
American Democrats of older age and with higher education levels expressed the highest concern with misinformation and as a result of this concern increased media intake of politically-aligned sources. (June 25, 2024)
-
COVID-19 pediatric vaccine authorization, FDA authority, and individual misperception of risk
Public commentary in response to the vaccine advisory groups’ meeting with the US Food and Drug Administration over the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the COVID-19 vaccine in children (5-11) displayed overwhelming opposition to the EUA and vaccine-risk misperceptions. (April 19, 2024)
-
How Polarised are Citizens? Measuring Ideology from the Ground up
Increased polarization of citizenry is observed in seventeen European and North American countries, whereby centrist positions are shifting towards extremes on either side of the political spectrum. This is most pronounced in the United States. (February 21, 2024)
-
The dose makes the poison
The world isn’t fully black or white – and substances aren’t fully toxic or safe (1). Even water could be lethal if you ingest too much, too quickly. It is the dose that makes the poison – or the medicine – not the chemical itself (1,2,3).
To determine the toxicity of a substance, scientists will measure the effect of different doses on an organism – usually mice or rats. The dose at which half (50%) the test subjects die is used to estimate the human lethal dose 50 or LD50, which is usually expressed in mg of the substance per kg of body weight (mg/kg). The smaller the LD50 is, the more toxic the chemical is. In most cases, harmful effects will appear before the LD50 is reached. Plus, the LD50 can vary depending on how long the exposure to the chemical is or if it’s taken by mouth, applied to the skin, or injected into the blood (1,2,4,5,6).
But a substance can also be beneficial when administered in the correct dose. For example, acetaminophen, a common medicine used to reduce pain and fever, has a therapeutic effect when used at a dosage of 325 to 1,000 mg per dose, for a maximum of 4,000 mg per day. However, consuming more than the recommended dose can lead to liver damage or even death. This shows how the same substance can be a life-saving medication within a specific dosage range but a harmful poison outside of it (7,8,9,10).
Similarly, it is not because something is classified as carcinogenic that being exposed to it will automatically cause cancer (11). The dose, how you are exposed to it, and for how long are all key (4).
Want to learn more about how doses affect toxicity and safety? Engage with us and let’s explore together!
Sources: https://tinyurl.com/SUFDoseMakePoison
*Numbers presented in the figure are calculated based on LD50 for an average adult of 75 kg, 45 ml shooter with 40% alcohol, 240 ml cup of coffee, glass of 8 oz (1 cup) of orange juice, and 100g extra dark chocolate bars (70-85% cacao) (1,2,12,13).
Share our original Tweet!
View our original Instagram Post!