Speaking of Psychology - Bonus Episode: Fake News with Chrysalis Wright, PhD

Episode Date: August 21, 2019

Fake news, 2017’s word of the year and recent edition to the Oxford English Dictionary, has become a widespread problem. This episode of Speaking of Psychology discusses how this phenomenon of intentionally spreading fabricated content and presenting it as factual is impacting our views of the world and why that matters. Recorded live at APA 2019 in Chicago with Vaile Wright, PhD, as guest host. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi everyone. It's Caitlin Luna, host of Speaking of Psychology. This episode was recorded live during APA 2019, our annual convention that was held in Chicago this year. I was away on maternity leave during that time, so my colleague Dr. Vale Wright was a guest host. We hope you enjoy the episode. Hello, and welcome to Speaking of Psychology, a podcast by the American Psychological Association. I'm Dr. Vale Wright, the director of research and special projects at APA, and I'm guest hosting this podcast today coming to you from APA 2019 in Chicago. Joining us today is Dr. Cresselis Wright.

She is the director of media and migration lab at the University of Central Florida, and we're going to be talking about fake news. I mean, my goodness, fake news. It's 2017's Word of the Year. It just made it into the Oxford English Dictionary, and it's everywhere. So I'm hoping we can really talk about and have a dialogue about what does it mean when intentionally fabricated content is spread as fact, and why should we care about it?

So that's what we're going to talk about today. So thank you for joining us. Thank you for having me. Absolutely. I thought maybe one of the ways to start would be, if you could tell a little bit about your background and how you kind of came to studying this type of thing, because I don't think a lot of psychologists necessarily go into this.

Well, my doctorate degree is in developmental psychology, and I'm in the psychology department at the University of Central Florida, and the majority of my research up until, I don't know, a couple years ago, focused on the influence of music. So most of my research focuses on the impact of like entertainment media and other types of media on consumers. And I started to become interested in fake news because of things I started seeing in 2015, 2016. It seemed like that term started to be thrown around a lot. Everyone was accusing everyone else of presenting information. and everything was called fake news,

but alongside that, I started to, I think we all started to see an increase in very overt prejudicial behavior that was presented to consumers through various media avenues, and I wanted to know why that was happening. So that's why I started looking at fake news. And we're all kind of consumers, right?

Yes, yes. I'm including myself. Right, but we're all consumers. Of sort of what's going on. So when we're thinking about the fact that we're all consumers, our family, our consumers, you know, how do we explain what is fake news? Why is it a problem? Well, there's, it's kind of hard to define

because everyone is using the term, but the way I use it or define it in terms of a research perspective might be a little bit different. So when I'm looking at fake news in terms of research, I'm looking at false, completely false information that kind of perpetrates rumors, spreads misinformation with the intent,

of providing false information to consumers, which is different than, say, a news report that's presented from a biased perspective. Sure. And so where does satire come into this? Because I came across this website the other day called Taiters Gonna Tate. Oh, I actually was going to talk about that today.

Well, excellent. So, I mean, where do you fit that in? I mean, it's a satirical website with very provocative, provocative headlines that are meant to be provocative. And it says all over there's these disclaimers where satire, We're satire.

Well, see, that's a problem. Not everyone reads the disclaimer. I mean, you know this. Not everyone reads the fine print, right? Like, usually we just, for instance, if you go to download an app on your phone and you have to agree to the terms and conditions, we don't actually read that. We just hit the box and say whatever and go straight to it. So we don't read the fine print, but consumers aren't provided with the tools necessary

to be able to decipher satire versus actual fake news. And we saw a recent example of how misinterpreting information, how it can actually influence attitudes and even behaviors. So recently there was an instance that involved two police officers in Louisiana, which might be how you came across the website. Taters going to Tate in the first place. So we had a situation where there was a police officer who was on social media, I believe he was on Facebook, and he saw a post that I believe he believed it was true. And the post talked about how one of our Congresswomen, it said something to the effect that she believed our military were overpaid for their services. And so he read this article or whatever the information was on Facebook, felt really strongly about it, and then posted a comment that was interpreted rightly as a death threat against the Congresswoman. And then another police officer liked his post.

Both of the police officers were fired, especially because of the post that the death threat was a bit much, and that's why they were fired from the force. But the post they were responding to was from Tater's going to Tate? That's the name of the website. But they have a social media account and they posted this post. It was intended to be satire, but obviously when they read it, they didn't understand that it was satire, believed it was factual. information and it led to, you know, strong emotions, feeling upset, which led to the posting. And, you know, we know that, you know, those types of things can lead to our changing our attitudes.

We're not certain to the extent at which it can impact our actual behaviors. We know attitudes can influence behaviors, but we have to do more research to connect those dots and make sure that there's a clear path so that we better understand how fake news and false information, false information can impact. consumers. And I sort of feel like part of it is that there's just so much information out there, that it can be hard to decipher which is which, and what seems different to me about today is the way in which political figures are participating in this.

People that we're supposed to trust in leadership roles just don't seem to be discerning the information either. Well, you can't call everything fake news. because information doesn't necessarily align with your personal views that you have already doesn't mean that it's fake. We had a session this morning about fake news, and one thing that was brought up is just because something is your truth does not necessarily mean it's the truth. There's a difference there.

So just because people disagree with you doesn't mean that the information that they're presenting is fake, right, or false. It doesn't help that we are bombarded with all of this information all of the time. A lot of the information that's, you know, kind of determined to be fake news is spread through social media. Almost everyone has a social media account. That includes Facebook. It includes Twitter. It includes YouTube.

So YouTube is still considered a social media platform. The information, you know, we see something on there. Most of the time, the information that we view already agrees with views we have. Because the information that is presented to us is based on our previous likes and clicks and all of that anyways. The algorithm that's working behind the scenes. That in itself is problematic because it does not present us with the whole picture on any topic. And if we only see one side of the story or whatever it is, all of the time we begin to believe that that is all of the information that we have. But we come across information. It makes us feel emotional. We get upset

about it. We think other people should have this information. So we share it. We like it. We send it to all of our friends and family, and then the cycle just continues. We don't have the tools right now to decipher all of this information that's coming at us, and we live in a digital world where we want to know information right now. So if you have a question, you can pull out your phone, you can Google it, it gives you an answer, and you want the information right then. We don't really pause to look at the source of the information, where it came from, the credentials for the source, you know, we want our information immediately, and that's,

that kind of feeds into the issue also. Right, and I've heard people refer to it sort of as like, it's not that people are bad or that they're even partisan, it's more like kind of like lazy thinking. Like we just don't go to the effort to actually figure out whether what we're looking at is true or not. And I thought what was interesting about this morning that was mentioned is that it's often individuals in the baby boomer generation, they're often retweeting or reliking these sorts fake news, it's not necessarily younger generations.

And I come across that in my own family. I have older cousins where I see that they have liked something or shared it on their Facebook. And I can tell it's not true. I think you were telling a story earlier about something you saw on Facebook. Right. I was given an example of how social media has been used to share fake news or false misinformation.

So there was a post I came across a couple years ago and it was a picture of a wall. And it was maybe 2016, 2017. It was a picture of a wall and it said something to the effect that Mexico has the ability to protect its borders. Why can't we? So the intent was to compare this wall that is supposedly in Mexico separating it from, I believe, Guatemala to the proposed border wall that's been, you know, proposed to be built here between the United States and Mexico. So a couple of things. Yes, it's a picture of a wall, but it is not a picture of a wall in Mexico or Guatemala. It's not a wall that separates those two areas.

Instead, it's a picture of a wall that is in Israel. It was built in 2013. It has nothing to do with our political issue whatsoever. But people saw it, they shared it, retreated it, and just it spread like wildfire. And you can see consumers, they believe it. They don't verify the source of the information. And they want everyone to, you know, they see this and they're like, see if Mexico can, Mexico can protect their borders, why can't we do the same, but that's not real.

That's fake news. That's false information. It's misinformation and it's misleading consumers. So that's another thing in terms of how we define fake news. What's the intent of the author that put it together? So if you tell me something, well, I heard blah, blah, blah, if that's really what you heard and you really believe it, you telling me does not necessarily mean you're sharing fake news. But the author, if the original author, if the original author,

author of that information knew it was false information intended to deceive, then that's different. So it's the intent behind it. We can't really blame everyone for sharing information that they come across on social media. We really need to look at where the information is originating from and the author's intent and creating it in the first place. Right, because it's the intent of the author that matters, not the reshare or the retweeter who might just be doing it because, like you said before, it evoked some sort of emotional reaction in them and they felt compelled to share it with others, or because, you know, it reaffirmed something they already believed in.

Right. I think the other thing what we were talking about this morning was this idea of wanting to be right. Right. We all want to be right about everything, right? Yeah. Yeah. So it ends up becoming what we call in psychology a confirmation bias, right?

Is that we seek out information that confirms the beliefs we already have, as opposed to seeking on information that might counter it. Right, and the algorithms on social media does not help that whatsoever. It makes it worse. So, I mean, we've hit on this a little bit, but like what are the consequences of, you know, all this sort of misinformation and the negative intent around it? Why do we care? Why should we care?

Why does it matter? If people start to believe false information, then they start to doubt accurate information that is accurate. So they start to dispute scientific evidence. You know, they start to fully believe this and misinformation. They start to kind of fall into numerous conspiracy theories and those types of things. And depending on the type of content that's in the fake news or misinformation that they're consuming, it can impact their attitudes. So the research I've conducted has specifically looked at outcomes related to immigration attitudes,

immigration policy attitudes and Islamophobia. And what I found multiple times is that people who are exposed to negative images related to these particular, hot topics, controversial topics through fake news, tend to have, they develop more fake, more negative attitudes. So it amplifies negative attitudes that they might already have. What we don't know is how the amplification of those negative attitudes, how it impacts behaviors. As a researcher, I'm interested in, for instance, the recent mass shootings that took place.

I'm interested in better understanding the social media profiles of those perpetrators. I want to know exactly what they were looking at in terms of social media. What were they looking at on Facebook? What were they looking at on YouTube? Obviously, they had negative attitudes. Something is off. Something is there. So we all have biases and we all have, you know, our personal opinions, but there's something different when people kind of take it to the next level and cause terror.

Right. Or, you know, I thinking sometimes it can be politically slanted, but there are other ways that fake news has had consequences like around vaccines, right? And so, you know, you have these false stories around vaccines based off of false research in certain ways. But when you look at the real science, of course, it tells a different story. but at this point, you almost can't rewind the clock. Like once people start to believe something and they have lost trust in institutions, then what do we do? We need to better arm our consumers.

We need to make sure that they are better educated in terms of media literacy. We need to make sure that they understand that sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes authors who put out information are trying to trick them. We need to arm them so that they're aware of these facts,

that it's not fake news. Fake news is not, you know, that they're aware of these facts and that they can better protect themselves. We need to make sure that consumers know how, because identifying information that's false is very hard. It's difficult. So we need to make sure that consumers know how to pause,

check the source of the information, where is it coming from? If they can't find the source, just leave it. Because if you're not able to verify the source, the source of the information, I would just consider it false information and not even go there. But consumers also need to kind of, especially in terms of social media, pause when they see something that makes them emotional, whether it's negative or positive emotion, pause for a minute, think about what is it about this piece of information that's got me upset? Why do I want to share it with other people and make sure that they understand that,

you know, if you share it, then to a certain extent, you're someone. somewhat responsible for spreading false information. So if we can better arm our consumers and help them to be better able to identify false information, I think it will help a little bit. But once that trust is gone, we have to work to get it back. And I think, like you said, it can be really challenging because the producers of the false information are using visuals and these provocative headlines and trying to go for shock, right?

So that it gets you worked up and it gets you reactionary instead of pausing. And that's exactly why false news or fake news is so memorable, why it's persistent. I mean, there's been research that has shown that even if you tell people, okay, the information that you just shared is false, here is proof that it's false. Here's a scientific study that proves the information you just told me is false. They still believe it. Because of how shocking it is, because of how sensational it is. It has more of an effect than real information.

So that in itself is part of the issue. People need to understand. If you see a headline that just seems completely out of this world, completely unrealistic, it probably is. The headlines should just be from more hard news or reputable news sources. They tend to just relay the facts. If you see something that is shocking, whether it's images, the headline itself, the way that the information is shared, then there's a reason for that, you know, that it makes it more memorable,

but it doesn't make it true. Right. You know, and I think, you know, in the wake of sort of this phenomenon, some social media companies have tried to take countermeasures, right? Sort of labeling things as false or putting tags on them. Seems like the research is pretty mixed on whether or not that's effective. Is that an accurate read? Well, for one, when YouTube did that, it totally messed up one of my research studies.

So I'm not, you're not a fan. Well, I think we have to be aware of where the, who's that, who's to blame, right? Who's responsible for the information? So you have social media platforms that don't want to be responsible for the sharing of misinformation that could potentially lead to whatever negative consequences. And I think that's why they have started to step in and start to block content and remove stuff like the Alex Jones YouTube channel, which is I was using that as a fake news example and a research study. So I had to stop data collection altogether and kind of use what I already had. So we'll see how that goes.

But they did it because they don't want to be responsible for the information. But what we're looking at is not a technological problem. It is not a social media problem. It is a people problem. Our, you know, looking for information that already confirms what we believe, being drawn to information that is shocking, sensational, that causes us to be emotional, wanting to tell everyone information that we think we know. Those are areas that are problematic that are kind of increasing the spread of social media,

you know, the fake news through social media. So we have to be very cautious about taking stuff down. Who makes a decision to take? it down, you know, are they biased in some way? So is it their bias that is leading them to want to remove content or do they know for sure, have they done their fact-checking and they know for sure that it's false information? So it becomes kind of sticky because, you know, we have the right to free the free speech, but that doesn't mean we have the right for hate speech, for instance, or free speech without consequences. So there's a line and we have to as a society

kind of figure out exactly where that is and what's protected and what isn't. Do we have an administration that can do that? I think something like that has to be a bipartisan decision. That's an excellent bipartisan response. So both sides of the aisle have to come together to kind of help solve this issue. And one thing we have to do is quit calling everything fake news. Just because I tell you something is fake news, doesn't. mean that it's fake.

Sure. You know, so we have to stop throwing that term around as if, I mean, we hear it every day. Right. We have to stop that and pay attention and make sure that what we're sharing is factual information, you know, regardless of who it is. And just stay off Twitter. She says after I've already tweeted out that I am here right now doing this podcast. You know, one of the things you brought up earlier that made me think was around Alex Jones,

and his YouTube channel. And I think one of the other motives around spreading misinformation is for profit. So a lot of his, if you ever watch his work, is really around selling a lot of products that he has. And he gets people to click on his stuff

and come to his page because he's being sensationalist and loud. And at the end, he's really trying to sell you something. What role do you think that is, that sort of selling the product, component of sort of behind all of this spread, the intent of spreading? Well, we see the for-profit issue in hard news or mainstream news also.

Everything is for-profit, right? So even in mainstream traditional news outlets, they have commercials that they're trying to sell you in between news breaks. And the way they present information is done in such a way where they want you as a consumer to watch their show rather than the other one so that they can make more money. So it kind of boils down to profit regardless of if it's hard news or fake news. Fake news gets a little bit more tricky because for instance, yes, Alex Jones was selling products and that type of stuff, but not everyone who creates fake news is getting a profit in that way. It doesn't always have to be a monetary profit. It could be, well, I want a lot of people to vote this particular way, so I'm going to create a

some sensational information and put it out there to try to convince people to do what I want them to do. Right. To influence them in some way. In some way. It doesn't necessarily have to be a monetary issue. So, you know, for our listeners, other than being more media literate or media savvy, what can people do to help figure out what news is legitimate and what news might not be? Well, you can fact-check the news.

That will be helpful. Well, let's say I don't have time to fact-check the news. Then you shouldn't be reading. Then don't read it. Because we have to be wise consumers. You know, we live in an age where we want everything. Right now, we want everything instant. We don't really want to, we don't have time to do that.

We're all working. Everyone is busy. But we need to make the time. If we want accurate information, we have to work to get it. And one of the best things about social media and the internet is that we have all of the information we could possibly think of at our fingertips. But it's how we're using those tools that starts to become problematic because people are creating information that's not real, it's fake, it's false. And the more you spread it, the more people start to believe it. So we need to make sure that we're checking the source.

and we have to engage in some type of self-reflection. Why is this information important to me? How does it make me feel? Why do I want to share it? And we need to pause and really kind of consider those things before we share information we come across on social media, before we tell our friends and family. Why is it important to us?

I also thought it was interesting this morning talking about how we only maybe receive half of the story. And so what that made me think about is, can we be more inquisitive? right as individuals. Can we ask yourselves, okay, I've heard this part of the story, is there more? What's the and? There's always more. Right. There's always more. And we do get half the story. So even from like mainstream news sources, CNN and Fox, those are both of those avenues are very biased. So on the way here,

I was kind of flipping back and forth between how Fox News and how CNN was discussing the mass shootings that recently took place and the president's tweets and rhetoric and those types of things that have happened prior to and shortly after. And both of those sources are presenting the same story. Right. Right. So both of them have facts in there. But the way they're describing it, the slant they're put on it, the spin, all of that is very biased.

So if you're only watching, say, CNN, you only get half the story. Or if you're only watching Fox, you're only getting half the story. We need to make sure that we're getting our information from multiple sources, engaging in fact-checking, doing our own research. No one wants to do it, but you have to do it if you're going to be a responsible consumer. At some point, it's our responsibility to make sure that what we believe as truth for ourselves is actually the truth. Right, right. Is there a reason to feel hopeful?

there's always reasons to be hopeful because we can always make a change. That's one of the things that's great about being people is if you see something that you don't like the way things are going, then you can put an effort and energy to make a change. And we have as a society, we have to all come together and decide that that's something that we want to do. If we don't, then we're just going to see this type of thing

just progress and probably snowballing and just continuously get worse. But if as a society we come together and say, okay, we want to make sure that the information that we are getting is accurate, true information, then we can make sure that that happens. So it's on us? On consumers.

And probably some people in charge. Hopefully. If we're passing laws and that type of thing, it really has to be something that's bipartisan. They have to be able to put their political differences aside and figure out a way to work together. Like, you could be Democrat, I could be Republican, that's fine. You have to be able to put your differences aside and work together to benefit society as a whole. Right.

And I think, you know, as we had talked, society benefits from facts. Yes, factual information is helpful. So that then you can make informed decisions about what you do. Exactly. Yeah. Well, thank you so much for being here today. Thank you for having me. I really want to thank Dr. Wright for sharing your expertise on this really timely and important topic.

If you liked what you heard today, you can always email us with your ideas and thoughts at Speaking of Psychology at APA.org. If you're interested in hearing more of our podcasts, you can get them on iTunes, on Stitcher, wherever you get your podcasts. They're also available on our website, www. speakingof psychology.org. I'm Dr. Vale Wright. It's really been a pleasure to guest to... host this podcast. I want to thank all our listeners and everybody take care.