Paper Title: Missing Voices: Examining How Misinformation-Susceptible Individuals From Underrepresented Communities Engage, Perceive, and Combat Science Misinformation

Author(s) and Year: Michelle A. Amazeen, Rosalynn A. Vasquez, Arunima Krishna, Yi Grace Ji, Chao Chris Su, and James J. Cummings, 2023

Journal: Science Communication (open access)

TL;DR: The authors found that individuals from Black and Latino communities were aware of misinformation but sometimes struggled to distinguish fact from fiction, especially as they were often less trusting of “official” sources like the government. Individuals from these groups indicated that they wished to hear more scientific news from local leaders, as these folks were more trusted than any info found online.

Why I chose this paper: I am very interested in combating both misinformation and historic inequalities that have led to many of the disparities we see in the United States today. I understand that these are not issues that can be reversed overnight, but I believe it behooves all science communicators to be invested in this endeavor. Recognizing how to build trust and communicate with communities that are understandably skeptical of institutions can be a good first step in this process.

The Background

Information Overload

With the evolution of the Internet over the past couple of decades, the amount of information available to any one individual has exploded. While this has meant that access to knowledge is easier than ever before (think about how many times you might quickly “Google something” in a day), the amount of content with questionable veracity has left many feeling overwhelmed, confused, and distrustful. 

This issue is exacerbated for individuals in underrepresented communities in fields such as science and the media who have reasons to mistrust government and big business, as these entities have historically exploited these groups. This skepticism, however, has provided fertile ground for misinformation – aided by social media algorithms – to spread.

As the world faces great scientific challenges now and in the future, authors Amazeen et al. looked at how misinformation-susceptible individuals from the Black and Latino communities recognize potential misinformation when engaging with scientific topics and if there are strategies that might be more effective at combatting misinformation.

The Methods

Amazeen et al. assembled two focus groups – one Black and one Latino – of people whom they identified as vulnerable to scientific misinformation. To determine individuals who might fall for misinformation, potential participants were asked to fill out a screening survey about their attitudes and knowledge of climate change. Those that scored highly on two of the three categories measured – motivation (curiosity about climate change), extreme attitudes (expressed skepticism), and knowledge deficiency (failed to answer T/F questions on climate science) – were recruited for the study. Ultimately 10 folks who self-indentified as Black and 9 as Latino were gathered in two focus groups, with the participants separated by ethnicity so that they could “foster discussions rooted in shared cultural and lived experiences, especially with media.”

Each group was given two hours to discuss their understanding of science and the media. A trained moderator (one of the authors) was present to guide the discussion as needed. The researchers wanted to evaluate (1) how often participants sought out scientific news, (2) where they got their news, (3) how they identified possible misinformation and strategies for vetting these pieces, and (4) potential intervention strategies to combat misinformation. To test intervention strategies, the groups were shown social media posts about climate change or COVID-19 accompanied by a fact check banner, a celebrity testimonial (Dolly Parton or Queen Latifah), or an “inoculation-like” message from the Surgeon General reminding the public to remain skeptical for possible misinformation. Participants were also asked if other strategies might work best for their communities. The conversations were transcribed and analyzed by the authors to identify key themes and results from each group.

The Results

Skepticism Abounds 

While none of the participants regularly sought out science news in their media diet, three topics generated the most concern: climate change, COVID, and health and wellness, including medications, cancer research, and food additives. However, many were skeptical about much of what they read or heard, pointing out conflicting messages from different sources (remember that these individuals had already been selected for their receptiveness to misinformation). This wariness was enhanced by an apprehension towards official sources like the CDC or WHO, due to historical inequities and harm caused by government and health organizations. If they were intrigued by a topic or idea, many people indicated that they would cross-check the veracity of the claim via Google, an official source, and/or community member. Still, everyone acknowledged that they ignored or missed a lot of potential misinformation, because “it is everywhere. You can try to act on it, but you’re wasting time. You’ll get burnt out.”

Unfortunately, most participants were equally skeptical of strategies for flagging or correcting misinformation. The general group consensus positioned fact checkers somewhere within a range from unreliable to downright censorship (“What level of credibility do they have?”). Celebrity endorsements were also dismissed. Group participants assumed that the celebrities were getting paid and felt frustrated that endorsements seemed to specifically pander to a minority audience. Folks were most receptive to a fabricated Facebook message from the Surgeon General reminding social media users to be wary of COVID-19 misinformation; many appreciated the caution while still able to rely on their own agency (in contrast to fact checkers). However, even this strategy finds significant drawback in that “it makes you second-guess everything.” Prompted for a strategy, many participants indicated that town halls or community discussions led by local and trusted leaders would sway their minds the most. Many also highlighted the need to discuss misinformation with children so they might be better able to deal with it in the future.

The Impact 

Community Matters (Now More Than Ever)

Misinformation is a worldwide epidemic, as the Internet has overwhelmed our ability to process the deluge of content that exists everywhere we look. This can be especially true for individuals that are less likely to have access (or see themselves represented) in institutions like the government, the media, or academia. To begin to understand how folks in these communities are dealing with this digital flood, Amazeen et al. convened two focus groups of Black and Latino participants that were identified as misinformation-vulnerable to ask them.

The participants were aware of the danger posed by misinformation and skeptical of much of the content they encountered. However, on topics in which they lacked prior knowledge – such as science – they largely lacked effective strategies for sifting through the debris to separate fact from fiction. In this regard, members from an underrepresented community were hindered by the fact that they were more likely to mistrust “official sources” like the government. This skepticism then extended to intervention strategies like fact checkers (which often rely on government websites) or celebrity endorsements, with folks suspicious that the celebrity in question is getting paid by Big Fill-In-the-Blank. 

For the most part, individuals in the focus groups indicated that their most trusted source of information was community leaders. Whether at town halls, libraries, cookouts, or just through informal dialogue, coming together with credible and known advocates provides communities with a way to ground their conversations in common facts and mutual respect. In the long term, this means that science as a field needs to do a better job recruiting and training interested young people from diverse backgrounds so that all communities can feel that they have representation in “the room where it happens.” In the meantime, science communicators can take the first step by engaging with local elders, religious leaders, librarians, and politicians to spread scientific literacy and knowledge as broadly as possible.

—

Written by Clark Hickman

Edited by Mariella A. Mestres-Villanueva

Featured image credit: Matheus Bertelli via Pexels