The Psychology of Misinformation and Fake News

In the digital era, the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news poses a profound challenge, shaping political attitudes, social behaviors, and democratic processes. Understanding the psychology of misinformation reveals critical mechanisms driving individual and collective susceptibility to falsehoods. Cognitive biases, such as the illusory truth effect—where repeated exposure to false information increases its perceived credibility—play a pivotal role, as do emotional triggers like fear or anger, which impair rational evaluation and foster impulsive sharing behavior.

Certain groups are more vulnerable due to factors like lower media literacy, ideological rigidity, or heightened emotional sensitivity to specific narratives. This susceptibility not only facilitates the viral spread of misinformation but also erodes public trust in institutions and fosters polarization. The consequences are far-reaching, weakening civic discourse and undermining political engagement by creating fragmented realities.

This analysis underscores the need for targeted interventions. Addressing these psychological underpinnings requires comprehensive strategies, such as debunking falsehoods with fact-based counter-narratives, promoting critical thinking skills through education, and leveraging algorithmic adjustments to reduce the visibility of manipulative content. By addressing these psychological drivers, society can better combat the insidious effects of misinformation on democratic systems and social cohesion.

Figure 1: Shutterstock, Untitled

Understanding Misinformation and Fake News: The biases

Misinformation refers to false or misleading information that is spread, regardless of intent, while fake news is typically defined as deliberately fabricated information intended to deceive readers (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). Both phenomena have gained prominence with the rise of social media, where the rapid dissemination of content, regardless of its veracity, can have significant consequences for public opinion and behavior. The virality of fake news on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp has led to a scenario where unverified claims often reach millions before being debunked, sometimes too late to counteract the damage (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018).

The human brain is wired to rely on heuristics and cognitive shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information encountered daily. These shortcuts, while useful for efficiency, also make individuals vulnerable to cognitive biases that increase susceptibility to misinformation. One of the most prominent biases contributing to the spread of misinformation is confirmation bias, which refers to the tendency of individuals to favor information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs or attitudes (Nickerson, 1998). This bias can cause people to dismiss credible sources that contradict their views while readily accepting less reliable information that supports their worldview. Confirmation bias also exacerbates the problem of echo chambers on social media, where users are exposed primarily to opinions and news that reinforce their beliefs, further entrenching misinformation (Del Vicario et al., 2016).

Another critical cognitive bias in the context of misinformation is the illusory truth effect. This effect suggests that repeated exposure to false information increases the likelihood of it being perceived as true (Hasher, Goldstein, & Toppino, 1977). In the digital age, where individuals are frequently exposed to the same fake news across multiple platforms, the illusory truth effect can significantly enhance the credibility of false information, even if the individual initially recognizes the information as untrue (Pennycook, Cannon, & Rand, 2018). Cognitive dissonance occurs when individuals experience discomfort due to holding conflicting beliefs or encountering information that contradicts their worldview (Festinger, 1957). To reduce this dissonance, individuals may reject factual information, rationalize their beliefs, or seek sources confirming their preconceptions. This process often leads to the selective acceptance of fake news, particularly when it aligns with deeply held ideological or political views (Lewandowsky, Ecker, & Cook, 2017).

Figure 2: Alina Kolyuka, Untitled

Emotional Factors and Misinformation

The emotional dimension of misinformation is equally important. Emotion plays a crucial role in how people process information and make decisions, especially in politically charged contexts. Misinformation often capitalizes on fear and anxiety. Studies show that individuals are more likely to believe and share information that evokes strong emotions, particularly fear (Weeks, 2015). This is especially true for news that taps into threat perception—the belief that something poses a danger to one’s well-being, community, or nation. Misinformation that amplifies fears of terrorism, immigration, or public health crises can spread more rapidly due to its emotional resonance (van der Linden, 2017).

Fake news can also invoke anger and moral outrage, leading individuals to share it as a form of social or political engagement. According to Brady et al. (2017), content that contains moral and emotional language is more likely to be shared on social media, as users seek to align themselves with a particular moral position. Political misinformation that incites outrage against a perceived adversary, such as political elites or marginalized groups, is especially potent in fueling partisan divides and polarizing communities.

Social Identity and Group Dynamics

Social identity theory suggests that individuals derive part of their self-concept from their membership in social groups, and this can have significant implications for how they process misinformation. When people perceive that their in-group is under threat or that the out-group is gaining undue influence, they may be more inclined to accept misinformation that supports their group’s position (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This process reinforces group cohesion while marginalizing dissenting or factual information.

Partisan polarization, which refers to the increasing ideological distance between political groups, intensifies the effects of social identity on the acceptance of fake news. In highly polarized environments, misinformation becomes a tool to delegitimize the opposing side and reinforce in-group solidarity (Iyengar & Westwood, 2015). For example, during election campaigns, fake news about political opponents can serve as a rallying point for voters to express loyalty to their party and reinforce negative stereotypes about the opposition.

Social media platforms, where much of the contemporary misinformation spreads, are not only information hubs but also spaces for social interaction and identity expression. On platforms like Facebook and Twitter, users curate their networks to include like-minded individuals, creating filter bubbles that reinforce their existing beliefs and limit exposure to opposing viewpoints (Pariser, 2011). In these environments, misinformation can be amplified as users share content that bolsters their group identity or aligns with their political leanings.

The spread of Misinformation: Mechanisms and Motivations

The spread of misinformation is often driven by a combination of psychological, social, and technological factors. Social media users are more likely to share misinformation when they believe it will enhance their social standing or validate their opinions within their network. Research indicates that people often share news articles not based on their factual accuracy but on their emotional impact and social relevance (Vosoughi et al., 2018). Additionally, the structure of social media platforms, which rewards engagement (likes, shares, retweets) over accuracy, creates an environment where misinformation can thrive.

Motivated reasoning is another key psychological mechanism behind the spread of fake news. Individuals process information in ways that align with their desires and pre-existing beliefs, rather than objectively assessing its truth (Kunda, 1990). This means that people are more likely to accept and share misinformation if it supports their political views or helps them make sense of complex social and political issues.

The Impact of Misinformation on Society

Misinformation has far-reaching consequences for democratic societies. It undermines public trust in institutions, distorts political decision-making, and exacerbates societal divisions. Misinformation erodes trust in traditional sources of authority, such as the media, scientific institutions, and government bodies. When individuals are consistently exposed to fake news, they may become sceptical of all information, leading to a phenomenon known as truth decay (Kavanagh & Rich, 2018). In this environment, the public struggles to distinguish between credible and non-credible sources, creating a fertile ground for conspiracy theories and populist rhetoric.

As misinformation fuels partisan divides, it contributes to the polarization of society. This polarization makes it more challenging to achieve consensus on critical issues such as climate change, public health, and immigration, as individuals retreat into ideologically homogenous groups that reinforce their views. Over time, the spread of misinformation can lead to increased social conflict, reduced political compromise, and even violence (Sunstein, 2009).

Figure 3: Anthony Gerace, The vocabulary of misinformation

Combatting Misinformation: Psychological Interventions

Given the complexity of the problem, addressing misinformation requires multifaceted solutions that consider the psychological mechanisms at play. One common approach to combat misinformation is debunking, where false claims are publicly corrected. However, research suggests that debunking alone is often insufficient, as individuals may reject corrections that contradict their beliefs, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). To mitigate this, interventions must go beyond simply providing factual corrections and focus on prebunking—equipping individuals with the critical thinking skills necessary to identify misinformation before they encounter it (Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021).

Improving media literacy is another essential tool for reducing susceptibility to fake news. Media literacy programs that teach individuals how to critically evaluate sources, recognize bias and verify information can help mitigate the spread of misinformation (Craft, Ashley, & Maksl, 2017). These programs are particularly effective when introduced early, as young people are among the most frequent users of digital media.

Figure 4: Javier Hirschfeld, Untitled

Conclusion

The psychology of misinformation and fake news is a multifaceted field that integrates cognitive, emotional, social, and technological dimensions. Susceptibility to misinformation arises from deep-seated cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, which predisposes individuals to accept information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs. Emotional triggers, such as fear or outrage, further amplify the likelihood of accepting and sharing false information, often bypassing critical reasoning processes.

Social dynamics play a crucial role, with peer influences and echo chambers reinforcing belief in misinformation through repeated exposure and group conformity. Technological factors, particularly algorithm-driven content curation on digital platforms, exacerbate the issue by prioritizing sensational and engaging content over accuracy, thereby creating fertile ground for the proliferation of fake news.

Analyzing these interconnected factors provides a foundation for strategic interventions. For instance, educators can focus on enhancing media literacy to equip individuals with critical evaluation skills. Policymakers can implement regulations to increase transparency and accountability in content dissemination, while social media platforms can leverage algorithmic adjustments to curb the virality of misleading information. Such evidence-based measures are essential for safeguarding democratic processes and mitigating the societal impact of misinformation.

Bibliographical References

Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114

Craft, S., Ashley, S., & Maksl, A. (2017). News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Communication and the Public, 2(4), 388-401. https://doi.org/10.1177/2057047317725539

Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., ... & Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports, 6, 37825. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80012-1

Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690-707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152

Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M. D. (2018). Truth Decay: An Initial Exploration of the Diminishing Role of Facts and Analysis in American Public Life. RAND Corporation.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(1), 348-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865-1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall.

van der Linden, S. (2017). The conspiracy-effect: Exposure to conspiracy theories (about global warming) decreases pro-social behavior and science acceptance. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 45-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.013

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe.

Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164

Visual References

Figure 1:  Shutterstock, (n.d.). https://www.shutterstock.com/el/search/fake-news

Figure 2:  Kolyuka, A. (n.d.). https://bigthink.com/the-learning-curve/on-disinformation/

Figure 3:  Gerace, A. (n.d.).The vocabulary of misinformation. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/05/02/the-vocabulary-of-disinformation

Figure 4:  Hirschfeld, J. (n.d.). https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240509-the-sift-strategy-a-four-step-method-for-spotting-misinformation