2024-11-28 19:00:00
Outrage sells. those who pull the strings of disinformation on the Internet, whoever thay are, know this better than anyone and use it to their advantage to amplify their narratives. The most recent example in Spain, perhaps, is the dana that swamped Valencia a few weeks ago. Readings of conspiracies,lies and extremist theories have spilled over the Internet and,therefore,into the most tangible public conversation. But this is not an isolated phenomenon. A study published this Thursday in the magazine Scienceshows that social media posts that contain false information provoke more outrage than those that include reliable information. And it is precisely that emotion that facilitates the spread of lies on the Internet.
To reach this conclusion, killian McLoughlin, doctoral candidate in psychology and social policy at Princeton University and lead author of the research, and his team analyzed more than a million links on Facebook and 44,000 posts on the social network, classifying the sources as reliable or uninformative. They then conducted two experiments in which they measured the outrage generated by certain news headlines – true and false – in 1,475 participants.McLoughlin concluded that “people may share outrageous information without checking its accuracy, because sharing is a way of signaling one’s moral standing or membership in certain groups.” And this seems to matter more than truth or lie.
More information
In light of the results, Ramón Salaverría, professor of journalism at the University of Navarra and coordinator of the Iberian Observatory of Digital Media, assures that “this study confirms with strong empirical evidence the hypothesis that emotions play a key role in communication processes publish”. spread of misinformation”. The expert, quoted by the SMC Spain portal, believes that the main novelty of this study is that ”it turns out that indignation is precisely the key emotion in activating the processes of spreading falsehoods”.
Sander Van Der Linden, director of the Cambridge Social Decision Making Laboratory, not involved in the research, confirms that indignation is a very intense and negative emotion. “I don’t think most people like to experience that. There may be a sense of collective moral outrage towards world events that may be socially rewarding, but in general it is not an emotion that people pursue.”
So what is the reward? Van Der Linden ventures a guess: “Users who share this type of news, whether true or false, are looking for interaction, as it leads to both social validation and financial rewards on platforms like X.If you produce content that generates a lot of interaction, you can monetize it, which creates perverse incentives on social networks.” The business of outrage exists,often driven by the algorithmic amplification of the platforms themselves.
First I share, then I read
The researchers also found that users are more likely to share false and outrageous information without reading it first. This result coincides with that of another study published days ago in the magazine Nature Human Behavior. an analysis of over 35 million publications with links to news that circulated on the social network with great virulence between 2017 and 2020 showed that three out of four users shared them without clicking or reading their content. That is,if you found this article on Facebook and are reading these lines,you have gone well beyond 75% of users.
This second research suggests that most Internet users simply read headlines and short notes without getting to involved with the information. S. Shyman Sundar, co-director of Penn State’s Media effects Research Laboratory and lead author of the study, says he has always been concerned about how easily social media users trust what they see floating around. “In this project, my collaborators and I ask ourselves whether people read, much less verify, what they share,” he adds. The answer to your question is categorical in most cases: no.
“That the percentage of people sharing news without reading it was 75% shocked us greatly,” says the researcher. Although the data from this study was limited to Facebook, Shyman says the patterns should be no different on other platforms like X. “What we found is a psychological tendency, a pattern of online behavior that results from the content sharing function. Therefore, as long as a platform offers this functionality, we are likely to see similar results.”
Now, why do we do this? All the specialists consulted agree that much of the obligation lies in excess information. “we are bombarded daily with information from all types of media across a variety of devices, which weakens our mental capacity. So we economize our cognitive resources by resorting to shortcuts, such as reading only the headlines and instantly pressing the share button, without thinking too much about the consequences of our actions,” ventures Shyman. But it shouldn’t be taken so lightly. Today, spreading something on social networks has the potential to reach all parts of the world and cause real damage. Examples abound.
Ana Sofía Cardenal,professor at the universitat Oberta de Catalunya,explains that human beings have two cognitive systems,one faster,intuitive and automatic; and another slower and more thoughtful. “Because the latter requires more effort, we use it less and only when necessary, that is, when there is a lot at stake when making a decision,” he says.
Processes that feed on each other
Both the practice of automatic sharing, without reading, and the spread of scandalous and false news fuel ideological segregation and information bubbles. For Cardenal, “what is most difficult to know is what causes what. That is, how much polarization contributes to this practice and how much this practice contributes to polarization.” And he adds: “They are processes that feed on each other.”
For Silvia Majó-Vázquez, research associate at the Reuters Institute and professor at the Free university of Amsterdam, the practice of sharing content without reading it presents another big problem.Among academics it is known as snacks or informative snack. Here’s how he explains it: “It’s normal to read a headline and give me the illusion that I’m informed and know what’s going on, so I think I can now make decisions in the public sphere.”
The solution to this problem seems to be far away.Shyman suggests that the first step should be taken by the platforms themselves. “Social networks should introduce friction into their interfaces, making it difficult for people to share content across their networks,” he says. The expert points out that both Facebook and X “could include signals or warnings in their design that cause users to stop and think before proceeding with the act of sharing.” He also suggests including a notice that the person who shared the content did so without fully reading the information. Another general strategy would be to limit the amount of content a person can share. Something similar to the function that WhatsApp implemented a few years ago in some markets,which prevented resenting a message that had already been shared too many times.
Cardenal, for his part, believes that public authorities must nip the problem in the bud by “limiting the platforms”. And Van Der Linden proposes establishing a system of credibility scores or trust rankings that incentivize users to share more trustworthy content. “When you share misinformation and extremist content designed to provoke outrage, your credibility score would drop,” he says, damaging the social validation many seek.
What are the psychological factors that lead to the sharing of misinformation on social media?
Interviewer: Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re diving into the phenomenon of outrage-driven disinformation on social media. We’re joined by Killian McLoughlin, a doctoral candidate in psychology and social policy at Princeton University, who led a groundbreaking study on this very topic. Killian,thank you for being here.
Killian McLoughlin: Thank you for having me. I’m excited to discuss our findings.
Interviewer: Let’s get right into it. Your research shows a clear link between outrage and the spread of misinformation.Could you summarize how you came to this conclusion?
Killian McLoughlin: Absolutely. We analyzed over a million links and 44,000 Facebook posts, classifying them as reliable or unreliable. Our findings demonstrated that posts containing false information evoke more outrage than factual ones.Interestingly,we also found that individuals often share content without verifying its accuracy,mainly as a way to signal moral superiority and group membership.
Interviewer: That’s fascinating. So, outrage is a driver in social media sharing and engagement. Why do you think people choose to share content without engaging with it, essentially just reacting to headlines?
Killian McLoughlin: It boils down to human psychology. Many users are seeking social validation or recognition within their communities. The immediate emotional response, especially outrage, can overshadow the need for accuracy. For many, sharing is a fast pathway to express their beliefs or moral stance, often prioritized over the reliability of the information.
Interviewer: ramón Salaverría, a journalism professor, echoed your findings, emphasizing the role of emotions in misinformation spread.Do you believe that societal trends play a role in amplifying this outrage?
Killian McLoughlin: Absolutely. Social media creates an surroundings where outrage can thrive. As these platforms are designed to maximize engagement, they frequently enough amplify emotional content, which can lead to a cycle of misinformation. Users, seeking interaction, inadvertently contribute to this cycle—spreading false information while chasing social approval.
Interviewer: Sander Van Der Linden, who commented on your research, suggested that there’s a perverse incentive structure at play on platforms like X [formerly Twitter]. Can you elaborate on this?
Killian McLoughlin: sure. There’s a financial motivation for creating content that generates outrage or emotional responses. Platforms reward high-engagement posts with financial and social validation. this creates a situation where users and content creators might prioritize sensationalized information over factual accuracy to maximize their reach and rewards.
Interviewer: That’s a troubling insight. Your research also indicated that a staggering 75% of users share articles without reading them first. What implications does that have for public discourse?
Killian McLoughlin: It highlights a significant issue in media literacy and the obligation that users have when engaging with information online. If people are sharing content without understanding it, the risk of misinformation spreading increases dramatically, ultimately shaping public perception and influencing societal discourse in harmful ways.
Interviewer: It really raises concerns about the future of information dissemination. With your findings in mind, what steps do you think individuals and platforms can take to combat this trend?
Killian McLoughlin: Education is vital. Increasing media literacy can empower users to critically assess the information before sharing. Additionally, social media platforms could implement stricter verification processes and reduce the amplification of sensational content in favor of promoting reliable information.
Interviewer: Thank you, Killian. your research provides valuable insights into the emotional landscape of social media and its impact on public discourse. It truly seems we have significant work to do in addressing these challenges.
Killian McLoughlin: Thank you for having me. It’s a crucial conversation we need to continue.
Interviewer: Indeed it is. Thanks to our viewers for joining us, and stay tuned for more discussions on the pressing issues in today’s media landscape.