This page is part of a 11-part guide on preventing folklore, rumors (or rumours), urban myths and organized misinformation campaigns from interfering with development & aid/relief efforts, and government initiatives regarding public health, the environment, etc. It is not a stand-alone page. It should be read as part of the entire guide. This is the link to the introduction and index for the other pages in this guide.

Simply countering disinformation with credible, truthful information, however diligently, often isn't enough. People want to believe their feelings, because their feelings are real, even if what is creating those feelings is misinformation. Also keep in mind that many people use "motivated reasoning" to affirm their beliefs. As described by sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill in an article by LiveScience.com's Jeanna Bryner, "Motivated reasoning is essentially starting with a conclusion you hope to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion." It means working backward from a firmly-held belief to find supporting facts, rather than letting evidence inform one's views and hoping people go in the right direction.

Eryn Newman at the University of Southern California co-authored a paper that summarizes the latest research on misinformation ("Making The Truth Stick and The Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology"), and in one recent study, Newman presented participants with an article (falsely) saying that a well-known rock singer was dead. The subjects were more likely to believe the claim if the article was presented next to a picture of him, simply because it became easier to bring the singer to mind – boosting the cognitive fluency of the statement. Similarly, writing in an easy-to-read font, or speaking with good enunciation, have been shown to increase cognitive fluency. Newman has shown that something as seemingly inconsequential as the sound of someone’s name can sway us; the easier it is to pronounce, the more likely we are to accept their judgement. More about the paper and similar studies here.

The desire of an individual or community to believe an alternative narrative, a desire that is stronger than the facts, because the misinformation touches a core belief they have, is one of the biggest challenges to countering misinformation. When a person feels part of a community or a movement that is "standing up" to authority, an opinion or position can feel brave, even empowering. It can give a person a sense of control.  

In short: people often make the choice of what to believe based on what their gut tells them, what their emotion tells them, rather than facts, because emotions are real. In fact, humans have natural tendency to resist correction - no one likes to find out that they are wrong, especially about something to which they have had a strong emotional reaction. The key in changing their hearts and minds is to know what people's beliefs and fears are, because these are often what is driving the desire to hold on to a belief despite facts. It's also a good idea, if possible, to allow people who have spread misinformation, who did so without knowing it was misinformation, to maintain their dignity as you correct them.

This December 2018 opinion piece from The New York Times notes that medical misinformation tends to spread further than truths on the internet — and has very real repercussions: misinformation about the risks of statins, the flu vaccine, the vaccine for human papillomavirus, childhood immunizations, cancer treatments has lead people to not follow medical advice and lead people to get sicker - even die. The author, Haider Warraich, a fellow in heart failure and transplantation at Duke University Medical Center, notes that (emphasizes mine) "To have any chance at winning the information war, physicians and researchers need to weave our science with stories. This is the only way to close the wedge that has opened up between medicine and the masses, and which is now being exploited by merchants of medical misinformation." Stories put a human face on medical and science information.

There are more resources about understanding the psychology regarding why people believe misinformation in other parts of this guide.

Some advocacy organizations use something they call deep canvassing. In this approach, trained organizers go door-to-door, and spend as long as 30 minutes at each door, using their training to get people to talk and talk, unhindered, about a particular issue: why they think this way or that way. The organizer listens without judgment, in an effort to build trust with the person before trying to persuade. The goal is to get people who may have never been questioned about how they feel, and may not be as set in their thinking as an outside observer might think, to start considering other points of view, perhaps for the first time ever. The Atlantic has an outstanding article from October 2022 illustrating this approach to influencing others and changing minds (if this article is behind a paywall for you, try talking to your local library about getting access if you cannot afford to read the article). In the article, Steve Deline, a longtime organizer for LGBTQ rights and a co-founder of the New Conversation Initiative, says regarding the approach:

On a related note: it's also important to read as much as you can about various religious views on the issue, be it related to human health, the environment, human rights, whatever, and to know the variety of views even within one religion regarding the issue at hand. Religious-based beliefs have been used to fuel beliefs in misinformation - but the good news is that those religious-based values can also be used to counter misinformation. More on this elsewhere in this guide.

Remember that you must be able to leverage local networks to deliver messaging on your behalf - otherwise, your outreach efforts will probably not work. Local health care workers, local leaders (official and unofficial), local NGO staff, local business people, local police - these are your messengers in countering misinformation. Also, you must work to convince these leaders - these influencers - that what they do must be reflected in what they say: as we learned during the COVID-19 global pandemic, people broke public health guidance when they saw those with privilege ignore them. Why should people socially-distance, avoid travel and wear masks when politicians and celebrities aren't? In fact, you need a strategy for what you are going to say and do when the inevitable happens: a photo of a politician, celebrity or other influencer doing exactly what public health officials said NOT to do goes viral.

And, finally: messaging that works with adults may not work with teens. Messaging that works with urban teens may be meaningless to rural teens. In understanding psychology and how it affects messaging, you have to appreciate the diversity of the audiences you must reach. The more you listen to these groups, the more you will understand how they perceive messages.

Back to the first page of this resource on preventing misinformation from interfering with development and aid initiatives.

Back to my development resources main page.