Bias, cognitive dissonance, and why misinformation prevails
/
(Source: Anna Shvets from Pexels.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Bias is a disproportionate inclination in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually due to unreasoned judgment. It is strongly associated with prejudice, which is a preconceived judgment or opinion about an individual or group, or an unreasonable, irrationally hostile attitude directed against an individual or group.
For the first time in history, much of the news Americans receive is tailored specifically to each of their interests and biases. In 2019, about eight-in-ten U.S. adults got news on their mobile devices either sometimes or often. Mobile news channels with the highest traffic—Apple News and Flipboard—allow users to personalize the types of content they receive.
Similarly, many everyday Americans turn to only a select few news sources—not necessarily because they are more trustworthy, but because conflicting messages are so common that they are compelled to pick some sources over others. There is even a correlation between which news sources you trust and what you believe.
In other words, the validation we feel in seeing our opinions in print may prevent us from ascertaining the truth. This makes us more susceptible to believing and spreading misinformation, and misinformation causes harm.
How Misinformation Causes Harm
Misinformation can lead to deaths and violence. It can sway public opinion. It even has an impact on our elections.
The spread of misinformation is actively causing harm in our communities at this moment.
Misinformation About COVID-19
In recent months, misinformation about SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, has spread rapidly online, and it has already had serious repercussions for public health.
Face masks, and rules about wearing them, have become a flashpoint in the United States. False information has spread online claiming that masks don’t stop the spread of the virus or that they can even cause harm to the wearer. Scientific evidence indicates that face masks help stop the spread of coronavirus and that cases can surge when large portions of the population don’t wear them in public.
But face masks have also become a political issue. Some citizens view mask mandates as an infringement upon their freedoms or as a draconian hoax to keep the populace living in fear. While Americans do enjoy many freedoms, U.S. citizenship also comes with responsibilities, including the responsibility to “respect the rights of others,” to “participate in your local community,” and to “defend the country if the need should arise.”
According to David Abrams of the NYU School of Global Public Health, much of the anti-mask sentiment is driven by misplaced pride: “There’s a certain bravado of being angry and defying requirements to wear a mask.” Abrams also says, “If common sense prevailed, all Americans would wear face masks.”
In another COVID-related case, according to one August 2020 study of 87 countries published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, roughly 800 people have died from drinking highly concentrated alcohol because they heard it could protect from the virus or “disinfect” their bodies of COVID-19. Meanwhile, 5,900 people were hospitalized after consuming methanol and 60 people went blind.
The Wayfair Conspiracy Theory
Some types of misinformation can even hurt the causes they supposedly support.
For example, QAnon is a far-right conspiracy theory that claims, in part, that an elite cabal of wealthy businesspeople and high-profile politicians are secretly engaged in a global child sex trafficking ring. Adherents to the conspiracy theory flooded human trafficking hotlines in August 2020 because they believed the online furniture company Wayfair was engaging in a plot to traffic children through their website. This diverted critical resources from trafficking victims and others who truly needed support.
The conspiracy adherents even co-opted the hashtag #SaveTheChildren, which caused Facebook to block it temporarily. This jeopardized awareness campaigns launched by Save the Children, a real humanitarian organization that helps children in need and also fights child trafficking. Now, the organization is worried that QAnon believers could undermine its bipartisan credibility.
It turned out that the Wayfair incident started because of an Arizona couple’s confusion about an overpriced cabinet on the website. Being social media influencers and self-described “red-pillers,” the couple were not only susceptible to the prospect of Wayfair taking part in a conspiracy, but they also had a platform readily available to spread the lie. Their posts even netted them thousands of new followers.
Most of us believe we can tell truth from fiction, but misinformation like the above prevails, in part, because of our subconscious thought processes and cognitive biases. With practice, we can recognize these thought processes and shift ourselves back into a rational state of thinking. Unfortunately, one of the most difficult thought processes to identify is one of the primary drivers of the spread of misinformation: confirmation bias.
We Are All Guilty of Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is the human tendency to align ourselves with information that confirms our individual beliefs and preconceptions, often at the expense of grasping the truth. When we are afraid, we are more likely to cling to information that paints a more favorable light of reality or that offers a straightforward, achievable “solution” that might resolve our fears. (Ironically, the more we understand uncomfortable realities, the more prepared and less afraid we become.)
Information distributors themselves can be guilty of confirmation bias, only publishing information that fits their brand of reality. Too often, that brand of reality is aligned less with the truth than with a profit motive or political agenda, often shaped by the confirmation biases of their audiences.
The larger the crisis (real and perceived), the more pervasive and powerful the fear, and the more likely everyday people are to grab on to and share bad information that supports their preferred reality or “solution” to the perceived problem. In the worst cases, that “solution” might mean demonizing or even hurting people we perceive as a threat.
TV pundits, radio hosts, and even otherwise legitimate journalists are frequently guilty of “playing off” the biases of their listeners, albeit to varying degrees. Even in the absence of outright falsehoods, generalizations about a certain political group, nationality, or race can solidify existing beliefs about those groups at the expense of a more complete understanding of the individuals described.
When media figures describe all “liberals” or “conservatives” as being of a single mindset, for example, they are robbing their audiences of a more honest understanding of the diverse individuals who ascribe to those political leanings, whether those media figures realize it or not. It’s therefore each of our own responsibilities to question those descriptions in a healthy and informed way, even giving our perceived enemies the benefit of the doubt early on—as per the fake Aristotle quote above.
After Confirmation Comes Cognitive Dissonance
When we confirm our original bias with some perceived sources of truth, we tend to stick with those sources—even when we may know ourselves those sources are questionable. Rather than questioning them, we may look for more sources that align with our biases instead. Similarly, if those original sources change their tune, we’re often inclined to find new sources that ascribe to the original, abandoned message.
There is no more public example of this than Donald Trump’s embracing of One America News Network (OANN) over his longtime-favorite Fox News when he began to perceive Fox News’ coverage as unfavorable:
(Source: Twitter)
Whether or not you agree with this particular analysis, it highlights a broader human tendency known as cognitive dissonance, where we hold on to our established beliefs and behaviors even as new or already trusted sources of information begin conflicting with those beliefs and behaviors.
By definition, cognitive dissonance is a “state of discomfort” where we’re unable to reconcile two opposing modes of thought. We tend to reject the mode of thought that does not line up with what we are most comfortable thinking and believing—even if that means rejecting the truth. (Think of a smoker who acknowledges the health risks of smoking, yet continues to believe, often subconsciously, that their lifestyle is safe.)
Before the internet, taking these “peace-of-mind shortcuts” (our term) might have caused only limited collateral damage to public discourse. That’s because our individual networks often consisted of only friends, family, and colleagues with whom we each had varying powers of persuasion. Given the slow speed of public discourse at the time, there were perhaps more opportunities for truth to intervene and prevail, even in these limited circles.
The Internet, and most notably social media, have completely removed any such comforting notions. Thanks to these media, the thoughts and inclinations of any single person on any given day can literally span the globe in minutes.
In the worst cases, this has led to chaos and suffering. In other cases, it has led to some amazing cat videos.
If we’re being grownups about this, we should acknowledge what is actually taking place here: a dramatic shift in who is responsible for the truth. Traditional and evolving news sources remain critical, but individuals are increasingly responsible for determining, confirming, and disseminating the truth themselves. And like any other true responsibility, taking this one seriously is critical to not only our own wellbeing, but also the wellbeing of our friends, loved ones, and anyone with whom we interact.
Individual Efforts Make the Truth Known
Although the problems here are enormous, the most practical solution is not necessarily a sweeping law or a largescale protest—although each of those approaches has its purpose—but rather each of us taking responsibility as an arbiter of the truth ourselves. The broader challenge then shifts from “silencing the liars” to “empowering everyday people to seek out the truth,” which represents a valid, more achievable goal.
It sounds like a lot of individual work, but like any skill—obeying traffic laws while driving, for example—we get better at it with practice until it becomes second nature. In time, we don’t think of it as “work” at all, rather a routine part of our daily lives.
It’s simply a matter of ensuring these good habits prevail.
This is a segment from a larger body of work entitled “Knowing What’s True in the Age of Misinformation: A Practical Guide to Finding Truth in Modern Public Discourse and Media.”
You can read the full guide here.
