It’s tempting to argue with someone who is misinformed by showing them studies and articles that prove they’re wrong. But new research shows that there’s another less confrontational way to get someone to change their mind.
It’s tempting to argue with someone who is misinformed by showing them studies and articles that prove they’re wrong. But new research shows that there’s another less confrontational way to get someone to change their mind.
A new study in Scientific Reports, led by Dolores Albarracín, a social psychologist who specializes in attitudes and persuasion, and serves as the Alexandra Heyman Nash Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, has found that « bypassing » misinformation is just as effective as debunking it head-on.
This way requires considering what conclusions one wants their audience to reach—is it that vaccines are safe, or that genetically modified (GM) foods are something to support?—and supporting those conclusions with positive facts the audience may not have considered.
Though debunking falsehoods with contrary facts works to change people’s beliefs about falsehoods, it isn’t easy. No one likes to be corrected and repeating misinformation to correct it runs the risk of cementing that misinformation into a person’s memory or alienating them if they feel attacked.
In the paper, Albarracín—Director of the Science of Science Communication division at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) and a faculty member at the Annenberg School for Communication, the School of Nursing, and the Department of Psychology—and co-author Christopher Calabrese, formerly a postdoctoral fellow at APPC and now assistant professor at Clemson University, propose bypassing as a new method for addressing the outcomes of misinformation.
