Welcome to Misinformation Mondays: a 5-part series where we delve into strategies that researchers can use to combat misinformation. Across the series we’ll be sharing resources to help you fight mis- and disinformation online and in your communities.
This week's topic: bypassing
When someone relays a misinformed “fact” or obviously false claim, whether in a face-to-face conversation or on social media, it can be tempting to immediately debunk it. But before you start your sentence with “well, actually…” consider whether refutation is the right strategy.
Those of us who are more conflict-averse might be pleased to discover that some research suggests countering a false claim directly may not always be the most effective strategy. This doesn’t mean saying nothing, but it means being more strategic than combative.
A person’s beliefs or opinions about a topic are often drawn from a variety of learnings and experiences. People generally don’t like being corrected in casual conversation. Directly refuting a belief can feel like an attack. and may cause someone to act defensively or dig their heels in on a particular stance. In some cases, finding a way to avoid directly correcting someone can mean the difference in being heard.
What is it?
Bypassing is a strategy you can use when someone shares misinformation or says something questionable in a conversation. With bypassing, you can add to the conversation by saying something that doesn’t directly contradict the other person’s statement but supports an opposing implication that may help redirect that person’s attitudes or beliefs.
Bypassing is most effective when people are sharing information that is new to them or have recently encountered misinformation on a topic that they’re not highly knowledgeable about.
Timing is key, and bypassing is most effective against beliefs, but may be less effective against attitudes. A person can hold multiple beliefs at once, and beliefs may change depending on the overall sway of information. An attitude, on the other hand, is a deeply held moral stance on a topic that is much more difficult to change.
Once someone has formed a hardened attitude on something, they are unlikely to be swayed by new information that contradicts what they already believe.
How do you do it?
As an example, imagine you’re having a conversation with someone, and they express a belief that women shouldn’t be included in clinical trials because cyclical hormone fluctuations make females too complex to study.
A refutation might sound like:
- “Male testosterone levels fluctuate daily, and we’ve still managed to get good results from studies including men.” Or,
- “Actually, female hormone fluctuations can be easily accounted for in a well-designed study.”
Both these statements are true, and in certain circumstances they may be effective counters. But if escalating conflict is a concern, try a bypass instead. You could say something like:
- “Including women in clinical trials allows us to study the differences between men and women and make drugs that are more effective for everyone.”
This statement does not directly counter what the person has said, but it does call attention to the importance of including women in clinical trials. Since you’re still in the realm of polite discussion, your conversation partner may be more likely to incorporate it into the matrix of their beliefs on the subject. If that new fact is in opposition to ideas that a person currently holds, it may prompt the individual to reassess that belief and potentially develop new ones.
Further reading
A Toolkit for Combatting Online Misinformation | Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Bypassing Versus Correcting Misinformation: Efficacy and Fundamental Processes | APA Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
You don’t always have to debunk a false claim to make a difference. | ScienceUpFirst