Conspiracy theories and speculation, unverified information and outright provocations… Whether we like it or not, the coronavirus continues to be the main agenda. Inaccurate information about the situation is much more than real facts, and they directly affect our mood, mental and even physical condition. So why are so many so enthusiastically sowing panic?
In an internet-driven world, social media has long been a source of information. This is especially true in times of crisis, when all kinds of “warnings” and information are actively disseminated in social networks and instant messengers, the reliability of which cannot be determined. Sometimes this leads to the spread of fake “news”, and the main wave is picked up and spread by the users themselves.
Professor Asako Miura and a team of scientists from Osaka University published the results of a study in which they found a pattern for spreading such disinformation. “It is based on false rumors, and we decided to study the main methods for spreading them,” writes Professor Miura.
The scientists focused on one of the world’s most popular social networks, where users can share information using the repost feature.
Slovik’s cognitive model
The models of information dissemination studied earlier do not answer the question of what kind of “route” fake news is transmitted, because they do not take into account the user characteristics of the inhabitants of social networks. Therefore, to begin with, scientists began to study these characteristics.
They selected 10 posts with messages about potential danger, which were shared more than 50 times by other people. Based on the cognitive risk assessment model developed by Paul Slovik, Japanese scientists tested user perceptions. They explored whether those potential risks were considered “terrible,” that is, associated with large-scale events and their possible dire consequences, or “unknown,” when the impact of the event was not known in advance.
The researchers then analyzed the accounts of the users who reposted, in particular the number of followers, following, and mutual friends.
How do we assess risks
Studying the problems of risk perception in the 1970s, Slovik and his colleagues conducted experiments and studies, the results of which were then subjected to statistical analysis. It turned out that there are factors that affect the perceived degree of danger of an event or phenomenon. For example, if an event affected children, then the level of risk was considered higher than if the same event only affected adults.
The increased sense of danger is also affected by:
- novelty of the event – unknown risks are much more frightening than recurring ones;
- misunderstanding of what is happening – if people believe that the source of risk is poorly understood, then they evaluate it as more dangerous;
- coverage in the media – the more emphasis on the event, the greater the anxiety in society;
- time – threats that are close to today seem serious to us, and those related to the future may be underestimated;
- reversibility – if it seems to us that the situation will lead to irreversible consequences, it is assessed as more risky;
- ability to control – if we think that we are able to influence an event, we assess the risks as less high than if we cannot do this – therefore, contrary to statistics, people usually fear plane crashes more than road accidents.
There are other factors that influence our perception.
Social media effect
After examining the accounts of those who reposted, Japanese scientists found that users with fewer contacts showed a tendency to randomly spread information – perhaps due to a lack of experience or awareness. Those who had many mutual connections were more likely to share “terrible” information. They perceived the information as more dangerous, they were more emotional, and they were probably driven by the desire to share their reaction with the public.
“Our study has proven that a certain social media distribution mechanism cannot be explained by traditional theoretical models,” says Prof. Miura. “It has become clear that risk perception has a significant impact on the number of shares.”
Prospects
This study can be used as a starting point when looking for answers to the question of how to prevent or stop the flow of fake news, and instead disseminate as accurate information as possible, on the basis of which appropriate actions can be taken.
“People have the opportunity to rethink how misinformation is spread and to promote the provision of verified information through social networks,” the authors of the study say.