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: pre-bunking
The internet and social media give us access to vast amounts of information instantly. With so much choice, people often take the path of least resistance – consuming news headlines from social media without reading full articles, clicking the first link that appears in a Google search, or consulting ChatGPT. But information that is easily obtained is not guaranteed to be accurate. Misinformation can spread faster than reliable information, for a couple of reasons:
- It’s easier to generate in large quantities
- It tends to be sensationalized and often appeals to deeply held moral and political beliefs
Both these qualities are rewarded by social media algorithms that prioritize consistent output and high engagement.
Researching, vetting and validating information takes time. It will always be easier and faster to produce misinformation. But this doesn’t mean that quality information can’t be made accessible (within reason).
Making accurate information more accessible can prevent some people from falling for misinformation. Sharing information appropriately can also help build trust in academic institutions, mitigating people’s perception of academia as an opaque “ivory tower”.
What is it?
Pre-bunking is like a vaccine against misinformation. You can use a two-pronged approach to pre-bunking.
- Sharing credible, data-backed information to pre-emptively debunk misinformation that may be generated later.
- Providing warnings and reminders about the types of misinformation that people are likely to encounter on a subject.
Just like some vaccines, pre-bunking has been shown to be more effective when offered in multiple “doses”.
How do you do it?
If you have knowledge and expertise in your field, talk about it!
You don’t have to write lengthy articles – in fact, it’s best you don’t. Tailor the information to the platform. If you’re posting on Instagram, for example, create an engaging visual and ensure that the information is understandable for a broad audience.
Post facts that you find interesting. Practice trying to explain complex concepts in a way that people from non-scientific backgrounds can understand. This is where communications and knowledge translation professionals can be your allies.
More tips:
- When offering corrections, use a neutral, non-accusatory tone.
- Ensure that you have the expertise to speak on a subject (i.e. have credentials in the respective field).
- Ensure you have the capacity to engage in further (respectful) discussion should questions arise.
Be aware that when someone has bought into misinformation that supports a deeply held political or moral belief, it can be very difficult to persuade them that their view is inaccurate.
If you’re sharing information about a highly polarized topic, such as vaccines, you can also use your platform to explain common misinformation strategies and give your audience tips on how to recognize misinformation.
For example, imagine you are sharing research findings that demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a certain vaccine. You can likely predict the general flavour of some of the misinformation that might emerge on the topic.
While it’s impossible to predict every misinformation narrative, you can inoculate your audience against some of it by exposing common misinformation strategies ahead of time. Let’s take as an example a middle ground fallacy, where someone might try to refute the research findings (vaccine is safe) by pointing to some other research that indicates an opposing viewpoint (vaccine is not safe). An argument based on this fallacy creates the impression that there is research of equal weight and quality supporting both sides (vaccine is safe and vaccine is not safe), and thus the truth lies somewhere in the middle (we just don’t know if the vaccine is safe). When in fact, there is a large body of high-quality evidence supporting vaccine safety, and one small, retracted paper that speculated on a possible safety risk.
Explaining the middle ground fallacy to your audience or including a fact-check prompt can temporarily boost your audience’s resistance to misinformation. It’s also useful to provide a “booster dose” by revisiting the topic with a light reminder a few weeks later.
It’s best to do this in cases when you can predict a narrative, to some extent – for example during election cycles or public health crises. It’s also much easier to inoculate people against misinformation before they’ve encountered the misinformation.
Proactive information is always better than reactive information.
Further Reading
A Practical Guide to Prebunking Misinformation | Universty of Cambridge, BBC Media Action, Jigsaw
Countering Disinformation: A Guidebook for Public Servants | Government of Canada