Ignorance may be bliss, but being ridiculed on Reddit certainly is not. Logically, we should back down when called out for spreading misinformation. Interestingly enough, however, a bruised ego can actually fuel belief in false ideas. Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth College political scientist, explored this so-called "backfire effect" in a 2021 article. Nyhan explained that a typical response to mistaken beliefs is to try to "set the record straight by providing accurate information—for instance, by providing evidence of the scientific consensus on climate change". Unfortunately, this is not always the most effective route. 

When the listener is already skeptical, they are not likely to have an open mind. Nyhan found that even “corrective information in news reports may fail to reduce misperceptions and can sometimes increase them for the ideological group most likely to hold those misperceptions”. For example, a Democrat is more likely to accept the correction of a false statement George W. Bush made about Iraq than a Republican is. It can be hard for people to recognize their fallibility without taking it personally. 

Luckily, the backfire effect is not impenetrable. Despite being stubborn, but we are capable of changing our minds. One larger danger making misperceptions difficult to eradicate, Nyhan notes, is the media. He shares that media "frequently fails to aggressively fact-check false statements by political elites or resorts to neutral 'he said' 'she said' coverage of factual disputes". Apparently, "survey evidence indicates that false beliefs about high-profile issues often persist for years or decades despite extensive efforts by journalists, scientists, and public officials to set the record straight".

A notable example Nyhan provides of this is the belief that US troops found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003. It was made clear at the time and in the years following that there had been none found, yet a poll in 2015 revealed that 42% of Americans, including 51% of Republicans, still believed the contrary.

A similar conclusion was found when a survey was taken in 2015 asking Americans what religion President Obama practiced. Despite Obama labeling himself as Christian and attending church for years, rumors swirled that he was secretly Muslim. The poll found that 29% of Americans, including 43% of Republicans, still considered him to be Muslim. 

In terms of fragile egos contributing to the flourishing of misinformation, fitting in is apparently a higher priority to us than facts. Explored in a New York Times article by Max Fisher, the need to feel like we belong is surprisingly powerful. "As much as we like to think of ourselves as rational beings who put truth-seeking above all else," Fisher begins. "We are social animals wired for survival." He notes that the hostility fueled by idea polarization makes us cling to the groups where we do feel we belong. "Once our brains switch into 'identity-based conflict' mode, we become desperately hungry for information that will affirm that sense of us versus them, and much less concerned about things like truth."

Many of us know how political differences can sever relationships and allow prejudices to blossom, but they can also make us prone to spreading false information. An example Fisher uses is how sensitive people are to social reward. "Research demonstrates that people who get positive feedback for posting inflammatory or false statements become much more likely to do so again in the future." All press is good press, I suppose?

In fact, when retweeting information, "truthfulness of a post or accuracy of a claim was not an identified motivation". Jon-Patrick Allem, a professor of research at the University of Southern California, investigated the role social media played in fueling misinformation about Covid-19. His research concluded that "Twitter users tend to retweet to show approval, argue, gain attention and entertain". It is a social networking site, after all. But the lack of concern for truthfulness is worrying when 7 out of 10 Twitter users consider the site a news source. 

One unfortunate statistic about fake news is that age is the most accurate predictor of who will share misinformation. According to a study from Princeton University and New York University, "people 65 years of age and over are seven times more likely to share fake news than those aged 18-29". Those of us who have grown up in the age of the internet are naturally more savvy online, and it can be hard to teach our elders this digital literacy. Especially on platforms such as Facebook, it is incredibly easy for misinformation to be rapidly shared into echo chambers.

Looking for ways to break out of your own social media echo chamber? Christopher Seneca wrote a piece for Wired sharing ideas on how to avoid perpetual confirmation bias online. As comforting as it is to associate ourselves with like-minded individuals, we must not forget that challenging our ideas can be important. "Social media companies therefore rely on adaptive algorithms to assess our interests and flood us with information that will keep us scrolling," notes Seneca. But we can actively try to present ourselves with new information. The first step Seneca suggests is to "like everything". Algorithms cannot pinpoint you if you don't let them.

The next step in branching out is to "swallow your pre-conceived opinions and follow prestige publications across the political spectrum". This helps you avoid news that is too far on either end of the spectrum, which is often pushed to incite arguments. Seneca also says to be wary of who you follow and what role they play on social media. If a friend has many followers and posts frequently, but does not follow many others, particularly no one with differing opinions, their content may not be for you. Next, Seneca recommends changing your settings to make your feed chronological, rather than the default, which pushes content the algorithm expects you to engage with. Lastly, create space for new voices. If you know someone shares your beliefs, consider muting them to allow someone else in.