Misinformation about scientific topics, including falsehoods such as vaccines cause autism and climate change being an entirely natural phenomenon, is an issue scientists have been discussing more and more. Widespread misinformation can lead to confusion about public health and environmental issues and can hinder those working to solve societal problems.
As an environmental social scientist who researches how science can have an impact on society, I seek effective ways to address misinformation.
There are many approaches that can work to some extent: for example, counteracting erroneous information with statements about scientific topics based on quality research that convey that the majority of experts agree, and “inoculating” people by preparing them to spot the fallacies in misinformation before they are first exposed to it.
But one of the most important ways to counteract misinformation is less about the facts and more about how those facts move within social networks and communities. In other words, it’s not enough for science to be right – it has to be accepted within people’s social circles to have any meaningful impact.
Can facts change minds?
Most people tend to assume that their knowledge and ideas are based on a rational, objective analysis of information. And that’s sometimes the case – if it’s snowing outside, people don’t insist that it’s sunny and warm, no matter how much they might like it to be.
Similarly, if a person comes across some novel fact in the news, such as the discovery of a new type of plant in the Amazon, they might just absorb that information and go about their day.
But rationality and the ability to embrace new information goes out the window when it comes up against ideas that challenge one’s preexisting worldviews or social identities. Such information can feel like a personal attack, leading the body to release cortisol, a hormone associated with stress. So, certain facts can feel threatening or offensive.
Sometimes, people accept new information without much thought. But when new information challenges their existing beliefs, they may double down on their point of view.
Compounding what is happening in the brain is what’s happening in people’s communities. Humans are social animals who turn to others they trust to help them understand what’s what. People are attuned to what is considered normal or acceptable in their social environments, so if their social group holds a particular belief, they are more likely to adopt that belief too.
One’s cultural and political identities often dictate how they interpret the same information, leading to disagreements even when presented with the same evidence.
These cultural identities explain why, for example, research finds that science-skeptical behaviors, such as vaccine hesitancy and climate denialism, tend to cluster in social and geographical…
