Chapter 5 Misinformation Prevention and Response

      Public health information is occasionally the subject of controversy, misinformation, disinformation, and politicization. Misinformation is incorrect or misleading information. Disinformation is the deliberate propagation of misinformation. Politicization is defined by Bolsen and Druckman as “emphasizing the inherent uncertainty of science to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus” (Bolsen and Druckman 2015). All these challenges undermine credibility by generating audience uncertainty (Bolsen and Druckman 2015). However, communicators can prevent and counteract misinformation, disinformation, and politicization (Green et al. 2023). Guidelines 12 and 13 provide steps to prevent and respond to misinformation, disinformation, and politization.

Guideline 12: Emphasize Consensus

      Because misinformation, disinformation, and politization cast doubt on scientific or organizational consensus, communications that emphasize existing consensus prevent manipulation from occurring and counteract existing campaigns that undermine consensus (Bolsen and Druckman 2015; National Academies of Sciences 2017). Emphasizing consensus is most effective when presented before misinformation, disinformation, or politization occur (Bolsen and Druckman 2015; Druckman and Lupia 2017; National Academies of Sciences 2017). The pre-exposure of consensus is like a vaccine that renders future misrepresentations less effective (Cook 2017).

Guideline 13: Distribute Warnings and Corrections

      When misrepresentation does occur, communicators can issue warnings or corrections. Warnings convey that scientific consensus exists and call for the dismissal of attempts to challenge that consensus (Bolsen and Druckman 2015). When viewed before misinformation, warnings are very effective at preventing misinformation (Bolsen and Druckman 2015). Communicators can also correct misinformation. When correcting misinformation, avoid repeating the misinformation as fact followed by a correction (Chan, Jones, and Albarracin 2017; National Academies of Sciences 2017). Instead, explicitly label misinformation as false and counter with detailed refutations that match the tone and format of the misinformation (Chan, Jones, and Albarracin 2017). Similarly, avoid presenting refutations more complex and lengthier than the misinformation (National Academies of Sciences 2017). Both corrections and warnings are effective in reducing misinformation, disinformation, and politization, but, as with many other public health activities, prevention is key (Bolsen and Druckman 2015).

References

Bolsen, Toby, and James N. Druckman. 2015. “Counteracting the Politicization of Science.” Journal of Communication 65 (5): 745–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171.

Chan, Man-pui Sally, Christopher Jones, and Dolores Albarracin. 2017. “Countering False Beliefs: An Analysis of the Evidence and Recommendations of Best Practices for the Retraction and Correction of Scientific Misinformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 1st ed., 341–50. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cook, John. 2017. “Understanding and Counteracting Climate Science Denial.” Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales 150 (2): 207–19.

Druckman, James N, and Arthur Lupia. 2017. “Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication, 1st ed., 351–60. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Green, Jon, James N. Druckman, Matthew A. Baum, David Lazer, Katherine Ognyanova, Matthew D. Simonson, Jennifer Lin, Mauricio Santillana, and Roy H. Perlis. 2023. “Using General Messages to Persuade on a Politicized Scientific Issue.” British Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000424.

National Academies of Sciences, {and} Medicine, Engineering. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, D.C., UNITED STATES: National Academies Press.