A systematic review examined “individual differences in susceptibility to health misinformation.” The results suggest those most likely to believe misinformation had conspiracy thinking, religiosity, conservative ideology, and using social media as an information source. Those able to resist misinformation were more educated, have more subject knowledge, literacy and numeracy skills, analytical thinking, and trust in science. (October 21, 2022)
Category: Misinformation 101
-
Cake or Pie?
Are you team cake?
Or are you team pie?It’s a simple question. But even simple questions can create BIG debates. Some debates aren’t so straightforward – have you ever been in a disagreement with someone, where sharing the facts was not enough and the situation rapidly escalated to personal attacks?
Science Everywhere (@whereisscience) knows that encouraging scientific inquiry and value is as important as sharing scientific facts for science communication to be successful. Like they say, “It’s not what you think. It’s how.”
Science Everywhere uses games to create a relaxed and jovial environment where true dialogue, free of defensiveness, can happen.
During their Freestyle Socials events, participants are asked silly questions such as “Cake or Pie?”. They must pick sides and try to convince the other team using surprising or funny perspectives. Because the questions can’t be taken seriously, neither are the arguments. This strategy primes the players to be more receptive to new ideas and ready to learn from others instead of being defensive when serious questions are asked.
We’ve been delighted to work with Science Everywhere to sponsor a successful Freestyle Socials event for our community partner, @LotusSTEMM. The players engaged in meaningful and fun discussions about COVID-19 boosters, nutrition and misinformation.
We are looking forward to our partnership with Science Everywhere and supporting Freestyle Socials events in other communities across Canada.
Check them out at https://ScienceEverywhere.ca
Share our original Tweet!
Are you team cake?
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced'Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) October 6, 2022
Or are you team pie
It’s a simple question. But even simple questions can create BIG debates and Science Everywhere (@whereisscience) knows that.#ScienceUpFirst
[1/6] pic.twitter.com/a6Hed8EM5lView our original Instagram Post!
-
Homeopathy: What it is and isn’t
Homeopathy can be appealing as it is marketed to be tailored to everyone’s specific needs and as a gentle medicine. But it is also controversial and an unproven system of care. Here is why
- Controversial because it follows principles that don’t align with those of modern science.
- Unproven because most studies have yet to find any true benefit to them other than the placebo effect. Don’t get us wrong, the placebo effect can be very strong, but it doesn’t mean homeopathic products should be used to treat a serious health condition.
For these reasons, homeopathic products like nosodes should also never be used to prevent a serious health condition. Advertising these products as “cures” is severely misleading and can be very dangerous.
If you are feeling unwell, your best option is to talk to a licensed healthcare professional first.
Share our original Tweet!
Homeopathy can be appealing as it is marketed as a gentle medicine, tailored to everyone’s specific needs. But it is also a controversial, unproven system of care. Here is why #ScienceUpFirst
[1/13] pic.twitter.com/dxWIDJMGSv
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) October 4, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on InstagramSources- Information on Homeopathic Products | FR
- Homeopathy
- Evidence for homeopathic medicines | FR
- False Claims about Homeopathic Nosodes | FR
- What Is ‘Water Memory’? Why This Homeopathy Claim Doesn’t Hold Water
- The memory of water
- Articles Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy
- Homeopathy Information
- Homeopathy—where is the science?
- The Placebo Effect | FR
- Homeopathy
- FDA warns consumers about homeopathic teething products
- Potentially toxic teething tablets still on shelves in Canada
- What is it about homeopathy that patients value? And what can family medicine learn from this?
- Homeopathic Products Market Size to Hit USD 19.7 Bn by 2030
-
Misinformer Tactic: Slippery Slope
Do your thoughts ever spiral like this?
“If I fail today’s test, then I’ll fail my class, and I won’t get my diploma. Without my diploma I won’t get the job I want; I won’t have any money and will become homeless! Therefore, if I fail my test today, I’ll become homeless.”
Misinformers know catastrophic thinking pulls on your fear and anxiety (1,2). That’s why they will use this cognitive distortion to make you believe that a minor event could lead to a catastrophic event (2,3). By using the slippery slope tactic misinformers shift your attention from the real issue toward one that is hypothetical and unfounded using extreme exaggeration, emotions, and fears (4,5).
Slippery slope arguments always have a mild start point and an extreme endpoint with no way to stop in between and no middle ground. They are fallacious as they don’t acknowledge the small probability that one event will actually lead to the catastrophic event and assume your inability to differentiate between these two opposite events (5).
When dealing with a slippery slope argument, try pointing out (5):
- How pieces of information are missing
- How disconnected the different events are
- How far apart the start and end point are
- How it would be possible to stop in the middle if desired
Many thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this project! Check out his work on his website (jordancollver.myportfolio.com) and on Twitter (@JordanCollver)
Share our original Tweet!
Do your thoughts ever spiral like this?
“If I fail today’s test, I’ll fail my class, and I won’t get my diploma. Without a diploma I won’t get a job; will have no money and will become homeless! Therefore, if I fail my test today, I’ll become homeless.”#ScienceUpFirst
[1/7] pic.twitter.com/IR6gKBMFbE
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) September 15, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on Instagram -
Misinformer Tactic: Doubt Mongering
When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing? When misinformers use it to question what has been scientifically proven and settled. That’s what we call doubt mongering (1,2).
The tobacco industry used this tactic to question the implication of cigarettes in lung cancer. This tactic has also appeared in climate change, and nuclear disarmament debates (1).Doubt mongers don’t try to convince you about their agenda, instead they create doubt on what’s proven scientifically. For example, instead of trying to convince you that tobacco or climate change is harmless, they state that the science is in doubt. This way they have you thinking that more information is needed before any regulation or policies are put in place (3).
A doubt monger will also (1):
- Only present data that fits their agenda
- Fund their own research hoping to get favorable results
- Claim the solution would be more dangerous or too costly
- Create the illusion of a disagreement among scientists
- Publish in mainstream media to reach more people
- Deflect the issue toward something irrelevant
- Attack the science or the scientist’s reputation and motivation (sounds familiar? Check out our Ad Hominem attack post!)
When wondering if you may be faced with a doubt monger, ask yourself these questions (4):
- Is the information coming from a legitimate source?
- Is the expert specialized in the field?
- Is the expert associated or paid by an organization to whom the allegations would benefit or disadvantage?
If you answered yes to one or more of these questions, you might be dealing with a doubt monger!
Many thanks to Jordan Collver for collaborating with us on this project! Check out his work on his website (jordancollver.myportfolio.com) and on Twitter (@JordanCollver)
Share our original Tweet!
When is it that a healthy amount of doubt and skepticism becomes a bad thing?
When misinformers use your healthy doubt and skepticism to question what has been scientifically proven and settled, it’s called doubt mongering. #ScienceUpFirst
[1/7] pic.twitter.com/SzLbw3Os39
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) August 25, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on Instagram -
Can You “Inoculate” Against Misinformation?
A new study suggests it is possible to inoculate against misinformation by using short videos to educate against common manipulation techniques, including “emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating, and ad hominem attacks.” The videos “improve manipulation technique recognition, boost confidence in spotting these techniques, increase people’s ability to discern trustworthy from untrustworthy content, and improve the quality of their sharing decisions.” (Aug 24, 2022)
-
Misinformer Tactic: Ad Hominem Attack
Attacking someone’s character does not invalidate their arguments.
Ad Hominem comes from the Latin ‘to the person”. An Ad Hominem attack is used to discredit the person to invalidate their argument, rather than discrediting the argument itself (1,2). By doing so misinformers are calling for people’s emotion, which is a very powerful tool (3,4).
There are many types of Ad hominem arguments (3,5). Let’s use an example to explain each type. In this example you argue that “chocolate cake is the best kind of cake!”
- An abusive argument would directly attack you. “Well, your shoes are ugly, so how would you know if chocolate cake is the best type of cake?”
- A credential fallacy argument would discredit your knowledge → “You don’t own a bakery so what would you know about cake anyway?”
- A circumstantial argument will question the veracity of your argument because of your motive → “You’re only saying that because your neighbour owns a bakery.”
- A guilt by association argument will discredit you because of your association with something negative → “Criminals also eat chocolate cakes so you must be a criminal”
- A “Tu Quoque” (from the Latin “so are you”) argument will use your past actions to discredit your argument. “Well, I’ve seen you eat vanilla cake before so clearly you’re lying.”
So how do you deal with an Ad Hominem attack? You can:
- Acknowledge the attack
- Point out the irrelevance of the attack
- Simply ignore the attack
“I understand that you don’t like my shoes, but that has nothing to do with chocolate cake.”
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 (jordancollver.myportfolio.com) and on Twitter (@JordanCollver)
Share our original Tweet!
Attacking someone’s personality does not invalidate their arguments. Yet that is what the Ad Hominem attack (from the Latin ‘to the person”) attempts to do!#ScienceUpFirst
[1/9] pic.twitter.com/9dWxujmTJ9
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) August 18, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on Instagram -
Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it
“Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it”
That’s not just an old saying. Research shows it’s true on social media too!
Misinformation tends to be a lot more engaging than truthful information. Keep reading to find out more!
You can help stop the spread of misinformation by simply pausing before sharing something.
Always think: “is this true?” before clicking send!
Share our original Tweet!
“Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it.”
That’s not just an old saying. Research shows it’s true on social media too!
A thread on the speed of misinformation ⬇️#ScienceUpFirst
[1/8] pic.twitter.com/UUgVjvjDMu
— ScienceUpFirst | LaScienced’Abord (@ScienceUpFirst) July 5, 2022
View our original Instagram Post!
View this post on InstagramSources- The spread of true and false news online (paywalled) | Science | March 2018 | Non-paywalled link here.
- Research Brief – The spread of true and false news online
- The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
- Misinformation on Facebook got six times more clicks than factual news during the 2020 election, study says | NYU Tandon School of Engineering
- The Role of Online Misinformation and Fake News in Ideological Polarization: Barriers, Catalysts, and Implications
- Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal | Scientific Reports
- Examining the impact of sharing COVID-19 misinformation online on mental health | Scientific Reports
- Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation | Nature Communications
- Developing an accuracy-prompt toolkit to reduce COVID-19 misinformation online
-
Tackling Misinformation Requires Combatting it From All Angles
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)
-
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)
-
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)
-
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)