A recent study evaluated “interventions aimed at reducing viral misinformation online both in isolation and when used in combination.” The results suggest that isolated misinformation interventions are unlikely to be effective on their own, but a “combined approach” can lead to a “substantial reduction” in misinformation prevalence. (Jun 23, 2022)
Category: Misinformation 101
-
Spreading misinformation associated with mental health concerns?
More and more research has found a connection between health misinformation and mental health issues. A recent study, for example, found “users who shared COVID-19 misinformation experienced approximately two times additional increase in anxiety when compared to similar users who did not share misinformation.” While this research is correlational in nature, it does remind us of the potential mental health costs of misinformation. ( June 2nd, 2022)
-
Yet more research links online misinformation to vaccine hesitancy.
Put this study on the growing mountain of evidence that has found that the spread of misinformation is linked to vaccination hesitancy. Indeed, this research found that the “associations between vaccine outcomes and misinformation remain significant when accounting for political as well as demographic and socioeconomic factors.” (June 2nd, 2022)
-
Misinformation more emotional and negative in tone.
Why does misinformation spread further and deeper than content that is scientifically accurate? A 2022 study suggests that misinformation is often emotional, negative, focused on morality, and easier to process as compared to content that is factual. The misinformation plays to our cognitive biases, such as the negativity bias, making it more memorable and shareable. (June 2nd, 2022)
-
Information in a pandemic flies fast
Does information go bad, like milk?
Yes! Here’s an example:
At the beginning of the pandemic we thought the virus could only spread via droplets (1). But now we know that much smaller particles, known as aerosols, can carry the virus too (2,3).
Like milk, there’s a reason some information goes bad or changes. The main reason is that our knowledge and understanding of the virus are also changing, or evolving (4,5).
@statcan_eng found that most Canadians will look for other sources or will read the full article to confirm the information they found online is correct. But only 29% will check when the article was published (6).
This can be a problem because misinformers sometimes use old information as proof to fit their narrative, even though our understanding of the subject has deepened over time (4,7).
So yes, dates are important, especially in the always changing COVID-19 world, and there is nothing wrong with changing your tune if it is supported by evidence!
Before you share any piece of information, always make sure to check if newer information is available.Share this with your friends to make sure they share only the most up-to-date information!
Share our original Tweet!
Does information go bad, like milk?
Yes!
Keep reading to learn why you should always check the dates.#ScienceUpFirst
[1/6] pic.twitter.com/VMiXGO7KOR
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) May 31, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on InstagramSources- How did we get here: what are droplets and aerosols and how far do they go? A historical perspective on the transmission of respiratory infectious diseases | Interface Focus
- Understanding transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic | National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health
- With COVID-19, Air Is Both the Problem and the Solution
- COVID-19 information continues to evolve: what’s new and what has changed?
- Think the rules on COVID-19 keep changing? Here’s why
- Misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Debunking Handbook
-
Did you know? Our posts are translated
When science communication is available in multiple languages it reaches more people and is way more effective (1). That’s one of the many reasons we are thrilled to partner with Lotus STEMM!
Lotus STEMM (@lotusstemm) is a not-for-profit organization that seeks to support and improve the representation of South Asian women in traditional and non-traditional STEMM professions (did you know that STEMM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine?).
They provide much-needed multilingual COVID-19 science communication for South Asian communities, especially during the heightened confusion about mandates and conflicting misinformation. And when we say multilingual, we mean it! They’ve created informative YouTube videos in a total of 11 different languages (2)!
We’re very excited to support Lotus STEMM by providing COVID-19 science communication content from our ScienceUpFirst accounts! Our posts are being translated into Farsi, Hindi, Pashto, Sinhala, Tamil, and Urdu by their extensive network of volunteers (3), all for the best impact and cultural relevance.
We look forward to our ongoing partnership with Lotus STEMM in their valuable work to engage South Asian women and girls (and their communities) in STEMM.
Share our original Tweet!
When science communication is in multiple languages it can reach more people and is WAY more effective.
That’s why we’re thrilled to partner with Lotus STEMM (@Lotus_STEMM)! #ScienceUpFirst
[1/5] pic.twitter.com/wXAzkesgYd
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) May 26, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on Instagram -
Misinformer Tactic: Impersonation
You know what they say… beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing… or lions in zebra stripes.
Or… accounts that share antivax content using blue and yellow graphics and the hashtag #ScienceUpFirst. Clearly they’re trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our colours and style.
A common tactic used by misinformers and scam artists is to appear legit by putting on the trappings of real information sources.
It’s a versatile and effective tactic. Here are some things to watch out for:
- When an account uses misleading, emotive names and hashtags that include phrases like “truth” and “freedom”
- Overusing scientific jargon incorrectly to appear well-informed. For example, “The quantum interference of neural antibodies coagulates the blood serum, leading to antibody rejection and histocompatibility errors.”
- Hijacking existing hashtags like #NIAW2022 or #ScienceUpFirst to gain visibility.
- Using similar URLs or account names that could be easily mistyped.
Want to learn more?
Check out Get Bad News, a game developed by researchers in the UK and Sweden that lets you try your hand at being an impostor online: https://getbadnews.com
Evaluations of the game show that learning about these tactics with fake examples actually innoculates you against the real thing: https://tinyurl.com/SUFBadNews
Thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this post. Jordan is an illustrator and science communicator specializing in using the visual and narrative power of comics to explore themes of science, nature, and belief.
Check out his work on his website and on Twitter.
Share our original Tweet!
You know what they say, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) May 19, 2022
Or… antivax accounts that share content w/ our hashtag and blue/yellow graphics, trying to capitalize on the trust we’ve built with our style #ScienceUpFirst
[1/7] pic.twitter.com/fgfAOfKu9XView our original Instagram Post!
-
Anchoring Bias
The Anchoring Bias
Why first impressions matter
When COVID-19 was first reported in early 2020, not much was known about the disease. It was a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring flu-like symptoms such as fever, cough, aches, and shortness of breath. Early estimates of its case fatality rate (CFR) were lower than SARS and MERS, and its rate of spread roughly the same as the flu. It was generally assumed that transmission was primarily through respiratory droplets, and possibly direct contact, as is the case for many other common respiratory diseases. Doesn’t sound so bad, does it?
Is COVID-19 “like the flu” or “like Ebola”?
Comparing COVID-19 to the flu indeed “anchored” many to the idea that COVID-19 is “no big deal”, despite quickly updating analyses suggesting a much higher fatality rate, a high reproduction rate, evidence of airborne spread, asymptomatic transmission, and long-COVID symptoms. Indeed, a later survey by Southwell et al 2020 showed: “Past influenza vaccination behavior predicted willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine in the future among Americans.” That is, despite newer information about the severity of COVID-19, respondents continued to anchor their decisions to the flu.
Now imagine that instead of the flu, early reports compared COVID-19 to a more fear-inducing disease: It is a virus-borne respiratory illness, featuring Ebola-like symptoms such as fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue. It is far deadlier than Ebola, with a similar reproduction rate. Unlike Ebola however, which is mostly transmitted through direct contact, COVID-19 is a respiratory disease that can also be transmitted through respiratory droplets, and is potentially airborne. A little more terrifying now? All of this information was available early on in the pandemic, and the disease could just as easily have been compared to Ebola as it was to the flu. Do you think this might have affected social distancing, masking, or vaccine uptake?
Anchors aweigh!
The order in which information is presented is important because the human brain naturally favours earlier information over evidence provided later. This phenomenon is called the anchoring effect :
“The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered”
It’s not that people don’t adjust their initial impressions at all, but rather that they under-adjust given new information – this is why the bias is sometimes referred to as the anchor-and-adjust heuristic.
One of the most common ways to study this is to tell people how difficult a task is before asking them how well they think they’ll do. Given the same task, people primed to think it will be hard (a low anchor) will rate themselves as less able and then will give up quicker than those who were primed to think it would be easy (a high anchor).
In other words, higher anchors lead to higher estimates of self-efficacy, and increased persistence behaviour in the task (Cervone & Peake, 1986; Peake & Cervone, 1989; Lee Ang & Ming Lim, 2007). Take this with a grain of salt, though, because other studies (Switzer & Sniezek, 1991; Jung, Perfecto, & Nelson, 2016) suggest that the anchoring effect may not always translate to actual behaviour in real-world situations.
There has also been lots of research in the economic sphere. The anchoring effect is responsible for your brain thinking something that’s on sale for $80 down from $100 is better than the same item just listed for $80 originally.
In one famous experiment, students were asked to write down the last two digits of their social security number and then rate how much they would pay for certain items. Those with higher numbers said they would pay more than those with lower social security numbers.
Anchoring in the pandemic
A notorious example in the pandemic is the arguments about the efficacy of mask-wearing. Masks were initially reported as insignificant in Western media in February, 2020. This view changed a few months later, in April, 2020, when they were considered effective. Now, with the Omicron variant circulating, they’re considered even more important.
However, public views were slow to adjust from initial impressions (image from Li et al, 2022). The graph below shows the willingness to wear a mask in the USA (blue) and in China (red). In the USA, where mask-wearing was not the norm before, it took almost 6 months for public perception to catch up to the science.
The study authors speculate:
“… prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Americans had very low expectations that wearing masks would protect against seasonal influenza. This low perceived efficacy may be one key reason for the slow adoption of mask wearing by our U.S. participants early in the pandemic. However, as scientific evidence accumulated and authorities began to clearly endorse mask wearing, most U.S. participants became more willing to wear masks in public space.”
The good news from this study is that views do adjust, eventually. In general, the science and public health communications experts suggest leveraging trust, expert opinion, consistent messaging, and audience-specific messages, as best practices in science communication.
Written by Anthony Morgan
Edited by Jon Farrow
Share our original Tweet!
Thought experiment:
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) May 18, 2022
What if, in January 2020, headlines read:
“There’s a new virus with symptoms like Ebola: Fever, sore throat, aches, and fatigue.” #ScienceUpFirst
[1/7] pic.twitter.com/lb9T0mIZlhView our original Instagram Post!
-
How Does Deceptive Content Differ from Reputable Sources?
A new study investigated how the “characteristics of misinformation” is different from factual sources. The author’s found misinformation content is easier to understand, emotional, and negative. What does this mean? While all misinformation is harmful, different types of misinformation occur, and we can’t “treat all misinformation equally.” (May 9, 2022)
-
Politically Motivated Science Denial Requires Identification and Pre-Emptive Debunking
The COVID-19 pandemic is labelled an “infodemic” of misinformation, in which scientific findings have led to conflicts, partly fueled by disinformation from “politically motivated actors” that may “distort public perception of scientific evidence.” A recent study suggests in such cases, “misleading and inappropriate argumentation must be identified” so “they can be used to inoculate the public against their effects.” (May 5, 2022)
-
Let’s have a Chickenpox mythbusting party!
Out: Chickenpox parties
In: The chickenpox vaccine!Keep reading to join in on the chickenpox mythbusting party as we break down some of the stickiest misunderstandings about Varicella-Zoster.
Share our original Tweet!
Out: Chickenpox parties
In: The chickenpox vaccine!
Keep reading to join in on the chickenpox mythbusting party as we break down some of the stickiest misunderstandings about Varicella-Zoster. #ScienceUpFirst #NIAW2022
[1/12] pic.twitter.com/jogT7ccrFc
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) April 28, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on InstagramSources- Varicella (Chickenpox)
- How Chickenpox Got Its Name
- How Did Chickenpox Get Its Name?
- When I use a word… Chickenpox
- Canada’s first universal varicella immunization program: Lessons from Prince Edward Island
- Changing varicella epidemiology in active surveillance sites–United States, 1995-2005
- Varicella (chickenpox) vaccine: Canadian Immunization Guide
- Fact Sheet – Shingles (Herpes Zoster)
- Herpes zoster (shingles) vaccine: Canadian Immunization Guide
- Two-for-One: Chickenpox Vaccine Lowers Shingles Risk in Children
-
Prompting Users to Check Accuracy Reduces Sharing Misinformation, Study Finds
Interventions that encourage social media users to check the accuracy of the news they share online reduces the sharing of false headlines and increases the sharing of quality news sources. The implications of the study, published in Nature Communications, suggests that reminding online users to check the quality of the news they share can reduce the spread of misinformation. (April 28, 2022)
-
Follow these tips to help stop the spread of misinformation!
Follow these tips to help stop the spread of misinformation!
- Scroll on past that rage-inducing post! When we are angry we’re worse at spotting misinformation. Plus, posts that trigger big negative emotions are more likely to go viral. Take a deep breath and let it gooooo!! ☃️❄️
- Stop! Before you share a post to stories, ask yourself, “is this true?” This tiny adjustment can have a big impact on the amount of misinformation that you spread.
- Read past headlines. Before you share, make sure you are getting the full scoop.
Share our original Tweet!
Saw a tweet that really grinds your gears?
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) March 10, 2022
Scroll on! When we're angry we’re less likely to spot misinfo. Plus, posts that trigger big negative emotions are more likely to go viral. Deep breath, and let it go.#ScienceUpFirsthttps://t.co/qDYwpN2iybhttps://t.co/SqMbyPke1g pic.twitter.com/CRGaHFnoGWView our original Instagram Post!