Misinformation: Why It Sticks and How to Fix It

From the 19 September 2011 article at Science News Daily

The main reason that misinformation is sticky, according to the researchers, is that rejecting information actually requires cognitive effort. Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true — it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources. If the topic isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold.

And when we do take the time to thoughtfully evaluate incoming information, there are only a few features that we are likely to pay attention to: Does the information fit with other things I believe in? Does it make a coherent story with what I already know? Does it come from a credible source? Do others believe it?

Misinformation is especially sticky when it conforms to our preexisting political, religious, or social point of view. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.

Even worse, efforts to retract misinformation often backfire, paradoxically amplifying the effect of the erroneous belief.

“This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false,” says Lewandowsky….

…

In their report, Lewandowsky and colleagues offer some strategies for setting the record straight.

• Provide people with a narrative that replaces the gap left by false information
• Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths
• Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief
• Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold
• Strengthen your message through repetition

Related Resources

• The Penn State Medical Center Library has a great guide to evaluate health information on the Internet.

  The tips include

  • Remember, anyone can publish information on the internet!
  • If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
    If the Web site is primarily about selling a product, the information may be worth checking from another source.
  • Look for who is publishing the information and their education, credentials, and if they are connected with a trusted coporation, university or agency.
  • Check to see how current the information is.
  • Check for accuracy. Does the Web site refer to specific studies or organizations?

The Family Caregiver Alliance has a Web page entitled Evaluating Medical Research Findings and Clinical Trials
Topics include

• General Guidelines for Evaluating Medical Research
• Getting Information from the Web
• Talking with your Health Care Provider

Additional Resources

• Consumer’s Guide to Taking Charge of Health Information (Harvard Center for Risk Analysis)
• How to Evaluate Health Information on the Internet (US National Cancer Institute)9iiu9
• Quackwatch (a private corporation operated by Stephen Barrett, MD)

 

…And a Rumor Control site of Note (in addition to Quackwatch)

 National Council Against Health Fraud National Council Against Health Fraud is a nonprofit health agency fousing on health misinformation, fruad, and quackery as public health problems. Links to publications, position papers and more.

Related articles

• Misinformation: Psychological Science Shows Why It Sticks and How to Fix It (psychologicalscience.org)
• Why misinformation sticks (indiavision.com)
• Misinformation: Psychological Science Shows Why It Sticks and How to Fix It (tricitypsychology.com)
• Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing (psychologicalscience.org)
• Why Misinformation Sticks and Corrections Can Backfire (healthland.time.com)
• New study analyzes why people are resistant to correcting misinformation, offers solutions (ns.umich.edu)

Bad science hunters

From the article Bad science hunters at the blog  Health Services Authors

I discover on the web many of those bad science hunters whose ultimate goal is to spread the knowledge of scientist’s misconducts, false statements and false results, methods or contents.

In their blogs they point the responsibilities of bad authors.

Retraction watch unmasks the articles retracted for a wide range of reasons.

Embargo watch describe the cases where authors had already published their data without telling it to the editor.

Abnormal science blog is a German blog (in English) dedicated to bad behaviour in science.

Rédaction Médicale et Scientifique is a French blog describing the bad habits of the medical scientific writing.

The Gary Schwitzer’s blog reveals the marketing and advertising hidden behind the appearance of science and tackles the disease mongering.

I respect highly all those persons involved for the best interest of science in a daily battle against bad science. Their disinterested independence is a shield in a world of egoism, financial and political greed and protect us against those who misrepresent scientific facts for political or financial gain.

Related articles

• Correcting Bad Science (andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com)