Kia ora from Jess,
Responsibility. It's a big word. When I think about people in positions of power, especially those with the power to influence the information people are provided with, I want them to be responsible with information. I want them to be good stewards of our shared knowledge, use it wisely to improve our lives, to build connections, to enable participation. That is true for most of us.
However, we find ourselves too often dealing with the negative impacts of what happens when people, especially those with means, have little regard for their responsibilities as stewards and protectors of good knowledge and information. Worse is when such people choose to protect and project false information. It's not new, those with an eye to power in all its forms have always manipulated information this way. Now however, there are much easier ways to disperse it, helped along by particular structures and systems in social media that profit from its spread. False information dispersed this way disrupts communities and severs our connections to one another.
This is what we are seeing play out in the run up to the US elections. The use and dispersal of false information has undermined trust in good information, and more importantly our ability to see what we have in common with those we are told are “other”. False information is a tool used to divide us both at the political level, and at the community and personal level.
There are many of us who hold fast to our responsibilities as guardians of good knowledge and information. And there is much we can do to counter false information. Building a healthy information environment is an upstream endeavor that requires decision makers to implement policy, practice and resource shifts to deal with the cause of the problem. We can all let people in government know we support actions that work to build a healthy information environment. For example, expanding our democratic processes to ensure more people can have access to good information and participate in decision making on the big issues, and ensuring social media systems are redesigned to actively protect children’s mental wellbeing. At the same time we must clean up the murky waters downstream by actively countering false information in the places we find it, using the tactics that work.
Researchers have for some years been conducting tests on the best ways to counter false information. For any of us who are guardians of good information – people in the media, people who are communication professionals, people who are trusted messengers in their communities and families – knowing how to use some of these tactics is important for suppressing false information. Knowing and using these tactics also empowers us to reconnect our communities that have been divided by false information.
Three proven tactics to counter false information
False information appears in many places – online, in person, second, third, fourth hand. Inevitably any complex issue we are attempting to solve, through policy shifts, interventions, or action, will attract false information. Three particular approaches have been proven to have a real impact on countering it, and the one you choose to use will depend on the context.
Inoculation against false information before people get hit with it
Knowing that false information attaches itself to new issues like flies to the proverbial these days helps us plan in advance. Inoculation does what it says on the tin. It activates people's critical thinking systems in advance of the bad information that will come, making them much less likely to be badly hit by it. Inoculation activates our critical thinking, not by repeating the false information, but rather by naming the type of false reasoning (or logical fallacy) that will likely be used by those creating or sharing the false information. For example cherry picking data, or over simplifying connections between cause and effect. There is a very particular way in which you can build an inoculation story to make sure it works. The great thing is we can prepare inoculation stories in advance as part of any plan for the release of a new approach or information.
Connecting conversations — for in person or online
Let's just name it, for many of us it is pretty bloody awkward having conversations where people clearly have the wrong end of the information stick. Often such people are deeply concerned by what they have heard, and unfortunately seem pretty convinced by it. The harm they are causing by spreading misinformation is real. We need to be able to deal with that without getting into massive arguments and pushing people further away – increasing divisions that those who created the false information wanted in the first place.
Connecting conversations are a specific way to structure in-person conversations that allow people who believe false information to first be heard in order to listen to what is true. Part of this structured approach is designed to focus on identifying and referring to shared values. Using an effective structured approach diverts us from the unhelpful “fact off” habit. If practiced in advance, connecting conversations can help us channel the powerful feelings we have about people spreading false information into a more constructive approach. One that invites people to slow down their thinking, hear your good information and over time reconsider what they have come to believe.
Truth Sandwich - for when we are really sure false information is out there
A truth sandwich is for when we are sure that false information has spread beyond our own bubbles and into the bubble of people who are not as interested in this issue as you are. Think of your friend who has never shown any interest in active transport before suddenly telling you about some conspiracy about cycle paths. That is a sign a particular piece of false information is getting out and needs addressing. In this case the truth sandwich, created by George Lakoff, is a useful way to provide accurate information without repeating false information and spreading it even further. Repetition is one way in which false information becomes more familiar in our communities and starts to seem truer to us as a result.
Briefly, a truth sandwich sandwiches the false information, the faulty reasoning and the motivations of those who created it, between two fat slices of true information. My colleagues and I have added a special sauce to this sandwich — a values opener. As we know that leading with values is a great way to connect people to an issue they may otherwise think is irrelevant to them or are too busy or overwhelmed to consider.
Learning and practicing these three evidence based approaches to counter false information is a solid way to rebuild those connections our communities both want and need.