Adherence to Misinformation on Social Media Through Socio-Cognitive and Group-Based Processes

Abstract

Previous work suggests that people's preference for different kinds of information depends on more than just accuracy. This could happen because the messages contained within different pieces of information may either be well-liked or repulsive. Whereas factual information must often convey uncomfortable truths, misinformation can have little regard for veracity and leverage psychological processes which increase its attractiveness and proliferation on social media. In this review, we argue that when misinformation proliferates, this happens because the social media environment enables adherence to misinformation by reducing, rather than increasing, the psychological cost of doing so. We cover how attention may often be shifted away from accuracy and towards other goals, how social and individual cognition is affected by misinformation and the cases under which debunking it is most effective, and how the formation of online groups affects information consumption patterns, often leading to more polarization and radicalization. Throughout, we make the case that polarization and misinformation adherence are closely tied. We identify ways in which the psychological cost of adhering to misinformation can be increased when designing anti-misinformation interventions or resilient affordances, and we outline open research questions that the CSCW community can take up in further understanding this cost.

The Effect of Widespread Social Divides Due to Polarizing Social Media Perspectives on Economic Growth

“…The reasons for rising misinformation prevalence comes from direct and indirect personal reasons. Emotion can play a large part in portrayal of information meaning that accuracy could be hindered around personal identity affiliation [6]. To some the reasoning behind sharing misinformation comes from a pro social standpoint, the desire to create social cohesion proves to be grounds to consider sharing false information understanding that the root cause is of a positive manner [7].…”

“…For the consumer of misinformation rising prevalence also comes from some degree of acceptance for similar polarizing reasons. The effects on memory also prove persistent many times because resonating details of misinformed situations may remain key in a person's interpretations of any given event [6]. Among other factors that can even alter accurate memories the misinformation effect really strengthens a sense of original belief systems [6].…”

“…The effects on memory also prove persistent many times because resonating details of misinformed situations may remain key in a person's interpretations of any given event [6]. Among other factors that can even alter accurate memories the misinformation effect really strengthens a sense of original belief systems [6]. Additionally, misinformation spreads especially easily in homogeneous group contexts as well as when interactions with outgroups are especially accusatory in differences in value [6].…”

“…Among other factors that can even alter accurate memories the misinformation effect really strengthens a sense of original belief systems [6]. Additionally, misinformation spreads especially easily in homogeneous group contexts as well as when interactions with outgroups are especially accusatory in differences in value [6]. Preservation of ideology and the desire to prove right ideals either due to twisting of own beliefs or adverse interactions with others all point to the idea of increasing adherence and allowance of misinformation.…”

“…Though these aspects do not have the means to be fully accepted, the rise of negative consequences due to social media information has [3]. Within the concept of negative consequences, increasing polarization is accepted to be chiefly due to the emotional degree of both viewers and producers as adherence to political background and views strongly determine information relationship [6]. Political identity is accepted as an important factor of producers and viewers regardless of their content intention [6].…”