The damaging consequences of the dissemination of misinformation and disinformation have prompted researchers in the fields of psychology and communication to explore and determine the specific psychological mechanisms that can explain why there are people who accept and believe incorrect information. These mechanisms are also called the psychological factors behind false information acceptance. They also act as psychological barriers that prevent people from accepting accurate information or validating information.
The Science of Self-Deception: The Psychological Mechanisms Behind the Acceptance of Misinformation and Disinformation
1. Confirmation Bias
English cognitive psychologist Peter Wason introduced the term confirmation bias in the 1960s while working on tasks he devised to understand and reveal the failures of human reasoning. These included the 2-4-6 Task and the 4-Card Task. Experiments based on these tasks demonstrated how people tend to seek information that confirms their hypotheses. Information selection happens through selective search, selective interpretation, and selective memory.
The concept of confirmation bias was later defined as a cognitive bias that occurs when people favor information that confirms their established schema. Schema is a mental model or pattern of thought and behavior that helps in organizing and interpreting information. People instinctively notice things that fit into their scheme. This bias specifically leads them to seek out, interpret, and remember information in a way that reinforces their pre-existing beliefs.
Interventions that promote personal awareness of confirmation bias can support efforts to reduce susceptibility to and acceptability of false information. M. Piksa et al. recruited 1479 participants to investigate the effect of confirmation bias awareness on susceptibility to general misinformation in relation to false narratives surrounding COVID-19 vaccination efforts. Their findings were detailed in an article published in 2024 in Frontiers in Public Health.
Half of the participants received targeted information to raise their awareness about their confirmation bias. The other half did not receive this information. Results showed that the group that received intervention demonstrated reduced susceptibility to false information and increased ability to assess the veracity of information. Note that these effects were only pronounced among individuals who exhibited the highest levels of initial vaccine hesitancy.
2. Motivated Reasoning
Another psychological factor that influences susceptibility to misinformation and disinformation is motivational bias or motivated reasoning. This is defined as a cognitive and social response in which individuals consciously or unconsciously allow emotionally loaded biases to affect how new information is processed and perceived. It overlaps with confirmation bias to a certain extent because it favors pre-existing beliefs and dismisses contradictory ones.
The main difference between motivated reasoning and confirmation bias is that the latter is mainly an unconscious or innate and implicit cognitive bias. Motivated reasoning is either an unconscious or conscious process in which personal emotions influence information acceptance or dismissal. Individual differences like personal values and political beliefs or social pressures like group-based identities and affiliations can moderate the process behind motivated reasoning.
Findings from the two-part study of X. Zhu and C. Pechmann revealed that conservative-leaning people tend to use misinformation during periods of heightened political polarization. The researchers explain further that these individuals are not inherently predisposed to this behavior. The polarized political situation often elevates the motivation behind their desire to promote or maintain ingroup dominance or reinforce the superiority of their group.
Researchers M. R. Haupt et al. explored fake news propagation on social media in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Their findings showed that motivated reasoning was positively associated with liking and sharing misinformation and this behavior was driven primarily by religious-based motivations rather than political ones. This is in line with previous studies that linked conservatism with endorsements of unscientific conspiracy theories.
3. Cognitive Dissonance
The study of M. Taddicken and L. Wolff focused on understanding the importance of emotional and cognitive processes involved in responding to disinformation in the context of climate change denial. Findings from their mixed-methodology approach revealed that some people look for counterarguments whenever they encounter information that causes cognitive dissonance or triggers negative emotional responses as part of their coping mechanisms.
American social psychologist Leon Festinger developed the cognitive dissonance theory in 1957 after noticing throughout his research that people often stick to consistent habits and routines and would feel mental unease upon encountering disturbance to this order. Some would resolve this discomfort through actions or behaviors that would restore consistency.
Cognitive dissonance is fundamentally the mental disturbance people feel whenever their actions or cognitions are inconsistent or contradictory. This can also occur in the processing of messages or information. Some individuals experience discomfort or negative emotions when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs or mental models. This could also compel them to seek out or create information that reinforces their existing schema.
The dissonance a person is experiencing can also overlap with his or her confirmation bias or other cognitive biases and motivated reasoning tendencies. K. Momsen and M. Ohndorf carried out an experiment based on the cognitive dissonance model to explore self-serving information avoidance in consumer behavior. Their results demonstrated strong evidence that consumers are predisposed to avoiding information that could challenge their preferred choice.
4. Novelty Effect
The fields of science and medicine have described a phenomenon in which an intervention is often perceived better when it is new. This is called novelty bias or novelty effect. The mechanisms behind this are still unknown. A review by Y. Luo, C. Heneghan, and N. Persaud noted that novelty bias may involve other forms of bias. Nevertheless, while it is often applied within the context of medical interventions, it can also explain the acceptance of false information.
It is worth noting that the novelty effect in false information acceptance contradicts confirmation bias. However, in some aspects, it also reinforces motivational reasoning and cognitive dissonance as psychological factors of false information acceptance. For example, when a person encounters discomforting information that contradicts his or her pre-existing beliefs, he or she might seek new information that would complement or supplement these beliefs.
Thomas D. Wilson also mentioned novelty as a factor influencing information-seeking behavior and curiosity. His review cited the work of M. Zuckerman and noted that people have a biological need for novel stimulation. Furthermore, based on the works of other researchers, he explained that novelty stimulates curiosity and encourages people to seek explanations. This exposes them to a new set of information that can either be accepted or dismissed.
Messaging fatigue can also influence the novelty effect. Researchers S. Kim and J. So notes that messaging fatigue occurs when individuals become tired and overwhelmed by repeated exposure to similar messages. Their study that involved obese and overweight adults showed that people either resist or disengage whenever they experience this fatigue. Resistance involves defiance to the message while disengagement involves tuning out the message.
5. Emotional Susceptibility
Researchers C. G. Horner et al. conducted a study grounded on the Economics of Emotions Theory that involved exposing 879 participants in the U.S. to false news headlines and measuring their emotional responses, beliefs, and intentions to share or suppress the information. Results showed people tend to share relatable news or information that evokes strong emotions regardless if it is false and would often suppress ones that contradict their beliefs.
Another study by N. Corbu et al. also showed related results. The researchers employed a 2x2x2 experimental design involving 813 participants to manipulate the intention to deceive, level of facticity, and valence of news stories. Findings showed that negatively biased fake news is more likely to go viral and positively biased fake news has no effect on viralization potential. Negative emotions like anger and fear play a crucial role in mediating this effect.
The emotional appeal of a particular information or content can complement other psychological factors of false information acceptance. For example, in relation to confirmation bias, news that highlights vaccine-related incidents would reinforce existing vaccine hesitancy. The same content would be amplified by people predisposed to motivated reasoning. This news would be received by an individual experiencing dissonance from science-based explanations.
Results from the two-party study by C. Martel, G. Pennycook, and D. G. Rand further showed the role of emotional reliance. The first study that involved 409 participants specifically revealed that those who are experiencing heightened levels of emotions are more likely to believe in false information. The second study involving 3884 participants that individuals who depend more on emotions over reason are more predisposed to believing false information.
FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES
- Corbu, N., Bargaoanu, A., Durach, F., and Udrea, G. 2021. “Fake News Going Viral: The Mediating Effect Of Negative Emotions.” Media Literacy and Academic Research. 4: 58-85.
- Haupt, M. R., Cuomo, R., Mackey, T. K., and Coulson, S. 2024. “The Role of Narcissism and Motivated Reasoning on Misinformation Propagation. Frontiers in Communication. 9. Frontiers Media SA. DOI: 3389/fcomm.2024.1472631
- Horner, C. G., Galletta, D., Crawford, J., and Shirsat, A. 2021. “Emotions: The Unexplored Fuel of Fake News on Social Media.” Journal of Management Information Systems. 38(4): 1039-1066. Informa UK Limited. DOI: 1080/07421222.2021.1990610
- Kim, S. and So, J. 2017. “How Message Fatigue toward Health Messages Leads to Ineffective Persuasive Outcomes: Examining the Mediating Roles of Reactance and Inattention.” Journal of Health Communication. 23(1): 109-116. Informa UK Limited. DOI: 1080/10810730.2017.1414900
- Luo, Y., Heneghan, C., and Persaud, N. 2023. “Catalogue of Bias: Novelty Bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 28(6): 410-411. BMJ. DOI: 1136/bmjebm-2022-112215
- Martel, C., Pennycook, G., and Rand, D. G. 2020. “Reliance on Emotion Promotes Belief in Fake News. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications. 5(1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. DOI: 1186/s41235-020-00252-3
- Momsen, K. and Ohndorf, M. 2022. “Information Avoidance, Selective Exposure, and Fake News: Theory and Experimental Evidence on Green Consumption.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 88: 102457. Elsevier BV. DOI: 1016/j.joep.2021.102457
- Piksa, M., Noworyta, K., Gundersen, A., Kunst, J., Morzy, M., Piasecki, J., and Rygula, R. 2024. “The impact of Confirmation Bias Awareness on Mitigating Susceptibility to Misinformation.” Frontiers in Public Health. 12. Frontiers Media SA. DOI: 3389/fpubh.2024.1414864
- Taddicken, M. and Wolff, L. 2020. “Fake News in Science Communication: Emotions and Strategies of Coping with Dissonance Online.” Media and Communication. 8(1): 206-217. 8(1): 206-217. Cogitatio. DOI: 17645/mac.v8i1.2495
- Wardle, C. and Derakhshan, H. 2017. Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available via PDF
- Wilson, T. D. 2024. “Curiosity and Information-Seeking Behavior: A Review of Psychological Research and a Comparison with the Information Science Literature.” Journal of Documentation. 80(7): 43-59. Emerald. DOI: 1108/jd-09-2023-0173
- Zhu, X. and Pechmann, C. 2024. “Political Polarization Triggers Conservatives’ Misinformation Spread to Attain Ingroup Dominance.” Journal of Marketing. 89(1): 39-55 SAGE Publications. DOI: 1177/00222429241264997
- Zuckerman, M. 1974. “The Sensation Seeking Motive.” Progress in Experimental Personality Research. Academic Press. PMID: 4614324