Do you trust the information you read on the Internet? If so, what criteria do you use to determine its validity? According to psychologist Holly Parker, it is enough to read any dubious message a couple of times to accept it as the truth. And it’s not about naivety at all – that’s our human nature.
Today we have access to a large amount of information. No, not like that: to a huge one. To the colossal. Back in 1995, there were approximately 23 websites. In 500, there were about 2019 million of them – and these are only permanent ones. As for, for example, Facebook, 186 years have passed since the creation of the social network in 2004, and today in the US alone 15% of residents use it daily, most of them adults (69%). Over 74% of Americans trust the news they read in their feed. In other words, the coverage is colossal and regular.
It’s certainly tempting to imagine that most of us can thoughtfully sift through news publications and discern what’s true and what’s fake. Meanwhile, research reveals a sad truth: we are not as insightful as we would like to think.
A team of psychologists have studied how fake news becomes so persuasive. The definition of “fake” is taken from the journal Science, where they are described as “fabricated information that is presented in the form of news media content, but is intended for other, usually selfish purposes.” Participants in the experiment were asked to read headlines on Facebook, both real and fake.
An important detail: some of the headlines (from both categories) were shown to the subjects once, and some twice, to find out whether people really consider information more reliable simply because they have already met it before. To avoid political bias, the researchers picked an equal number of headlines that mentioned Democrats and Republicans. Among other things, they intended to test the extent to which political views influence the perception of the text, and preliminarily assessed the views of each participant.
You probably want to know why psychologists are interested in how repetition correlates with the tendency to trust information? It’s all about the “illusion of truth effect” – as scientists call our natural tendency to believe the statement, if we have already come across it before. Experts believe this is because the brain takes less effort to re-process an opinion or comment that we thought about before. First of all, this is due to mental comfort: we get pleasure from meeting an idea that is already familiar, and therefore we perceive it as more reliable.
Even if a fake had caught the eye a week earlier, people still believed it to be authentic.
The authors made two key findings. First, despite the fact that facts look more believable than fiction, the illusion of truth effect forces us to agree with unlikely statements, including fabricated sensationalism posted on platforms like Facebook. That is, even if the headline is obviously concocted, we are ready to believe it for the simple reason that we have already read something similar before. Moreover, it is not necessary to remember verbatim – the effect will still work.
Secondly, political views do not play any role. Fake headlines, read repeatedly, were rated as more persuasive, regardless of how much they matched the beliefs of the study participants. Moreover, it turned out that fake news is quite firmly fixed in the mind. Even if the fake had caught the eye a week earlier, people still believed it to be authentic, regardless of political sympathies.
How to distinguish truth from lies? Unfortunately, science has not yet invented win-win methods of protecting consumers of information from fabricated news. However, it is useful to remember that not all sources of information are equally reliable, and just in case, check with reputable publications and sites that conscientiously check the facts.
Another good tool was found in a new study, which is being prepared for publication in 2020: after reading the headline, pause and compare it with the information already received. Participants were shown a selection of dubious statements and asked to determine how true they were, which was supposed to prevent the effect of the illusion of truth. The idea worked, because people were asked not to rely on the ease of mental perception, but to recall the information they already possess, and then decide whether to trust what they read.
But it must be emphasized that this worked only with those who had something to remember. As the authors note, if relevant information is not stored in the cells of our memory, additional efforts may be required – for example, online search, which definitely complicates life. However, you already know that the number of hours in a day is limited.
Given all the scientific calculations, let’s summarize. The task of countering the influx of fake news lies not only with the direct consumers of the content. All indications are that media platforms should cooperate with and support independent experts in their efforts to discourage illegal attempts to spread disinformation under the guise of real news. Let’s hope that this happens.
About the Author: Holly Parker, Clinical Psychologist, Lecturer at Harvard University, Author of If We’re Together, Why Am I So Lonely: How to Reach Out to an Emotionally Closed Partner.