To combat misinformation, start with connection, not correction

Misinformation and disinformation can be a threat to our democracy. It can divide communities. It can make it harder for people to make informed choices — at the ballot box, at the grocery store and at the doctor's office.

No one is immune. “We just don't have the time, the cognitive resources or even the motivation to literally fact-check every piece of information that comes our way,” says Briony Swire-Thompson, director of the Psychology of Misinformation Lab at Northeastern University.

People trust information more when it comes from sources or cultural contexts they are familiar with, so talking to your loved ones can make a difference. The big picture idea here? Start from a place of connection, not correction.

Here are six ways to combat misinformation.

1. Consider using the term "rumor" or "misleading content" instead of "misinformation"

"[The terms] mis- and disinformation trigger a sort of reaction, and usually distaste,” says Sarah Nguyễn, a doctoral candidate at the University of Washington Information School who studies how people share information with each other. She says the terms have become politicized.

Nguyễn leads workshops for the Vietnamese community in the Seattle area about how to address problematic information and deepfakes. In the workshops, they try to avoid using those terms altogether, instead opting for “rumors” or “misleading content.”

“What people consider mis- and disinformation can be really different,” says Rachel Kuo, the research facilitator of the Asian American Disinformation Table.

2. Take time to understand why your loved one believes the misleading content

Nguyễn and Kuo both stress the importance of putting aside the idea of intervention to start. Recognize that your friend or family member has a whole life's worth of experiences that affects how they engage with whatever they read online or hear on the news. “So often people's memories really shaped the ways that they engage in current ways with political systems and their media environments,” says Kuo.

Kuo recommends starting the process somewhere surprising: by asking them questions about their family history. Try asking about their childhood. What are some things they remember? Who were they close with growing up? What do they remember about migrating to the United States, if they did?

From there, you can build up to the present day. Kuo says you can then ask questions like: “What are some of the things that you've engaged in recently? Have you voted, for example, or have you been vaccinated? Why or why not?”

You can break up these conversations over time. Alternatively, if the current conversation is going well and you think your loved one would be receptive to pivoting to current events, you can try having the discussion in one go.

3. Talk about your sources, and discuss why you find them trustworthy

Psychology research examining how to effectively correct misinformation occurs in a very controlled experimental setting. Swire-Thompson notes there haven't been studies that take into account more complex social dynamics, like a family setting. That being said, we can still take learnings from peer-reviewed studies and try applying them to our conversations with people we care about.

Swire-Thompson says she’s found discussing sources to be an effective way to help debunk misinformation. “Instead of saying ‘here's the misinformation, it is false,’ you can say, ‘what is the evidence,’ for both the individual who believes in the misinformation and for your side.’” That will help you have a conversation about who or what you both trust and why.

In one study, Swire-Thompson found highlighting a source’s low expertise worked well to discredit dubious health claims. “It was far more effective than just correcting the misinformation,” says Swire-Thompson.

To point out how unqualified a source is, you can highlight the source’s lack of skills, professional training, relevant educational background, etc. You can also point out any conflicts of interest they might have.

4. Realize you’re not trying to change anyone’s core beliefs. You’re simply addressing a piece of information that is not correct

Nguyễn says these conversations are not about trying to change someone inherently. “It is more about how [we can] build this coexisting trust with each other and continue these types of conversations in a sustainable and healthy way.” The goal here is to keep the conversation going. Making someone feel like there’s something wrong with their worldview is just going to cause them to shut down.

Swire-Thompson has studied misleading political statements. “For political misinformation, we found that correcting misinformation didn't make much difference in terms of how much they trusted that source in the future, or how much they were going to vote for that political candidate.” So instead of trying to convince your uncle or auntie to not vote for a particular candidate, try discussing a piece of misleading or false information the candidate or their party has circulated.

5. When you do attempt to correct misleading information, provide a detailed fact-check

You might think keeping that correction short and sweet is better, but “providing a good amount of detail for why something is wrong is more effective,” says Swire-Thompson. Research shows providing a “factual alternative,” or saying what is actually true, is more effective than just saying a piece of information is false.

For example, say your friend expresses concern about the integrity of voting by mail. Let’s say they believe, in particular, that fraud is rampant with mailed-in ballots. After you’ve taken time to understand why they believe that to be true, you can tell them instances of voter fraud are extremely rare. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute, multiple analyses have shown it’s more likely someone will be struck by lightning than commit mail ballot fraud. Voting by mail also dates back to the Civil War and since then, states have developed multiple layers of security to safeguard elections.

6. Don't expect things to change after one conversation

All three experts say you can’t expect things to change after one conversation. If things are getting unproductive or you’re getting stonewalled, it’s OK to take a step back, says Kuo. “And sometimes, if you just don't see eye to eye on a topic, it's OK to [drop it to] preserve the relationship,” says Swire-Thompson.

But if things were going well, and it’s a conversation you both feel comfortable returning to, “repeating the correction is really important just because of our limitations on memory,” says Swire-Thompson.

Researchers have found a phenomenon called “belief regression.” It’s when a correction to misinformation works really well in the short term, “but over time, people's belief kind of creeps toward these pre-correction levels.”

“Despite whatever media literacy or information literacy tools are out there, it is, like many types of changes and evolutions, a slow process,” says Nguyễn. “There is always this sense of urgency when we hear something true or false and saying ‘false, I want to correct you!’ But in the spirit of building long-term relationships, to be able to do this on a slower scale will have a larger impact.”

This story was edited by Brett Neely. The visual editor is Beck Harlan.

We'd love to hear from you. Email us at LifeKit@npr.org. Listen to Life Kit on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, or sign up for our newsletter.