Detecting and Disseminating Misinformation: Strengthening Critical Democratic Abilities
Detecting Misinformation: Challenges and Impacts on Democracies
The proliferation of misinformation on social media platforms represents a considerable threat for the quality of public discourse and the integrity of democratic processes (Reglitz, 2022; McKay & Tenove, 2021; Silva & Proksch, 2021). The ability to accurately classify and identify misinformation is essential in order to mitigate its adverse effects. Indeed, the interplay between scientific knowledge, democratic debate, and the proliferation of esotericism, conspiratorial thinking, and misinformation has emerged as a critical area.
It is assumed that significant political misinformation may influence the political orientation of the population and, subsequently, the outcome of elections. However, there is a notable absence of studies analysing its impact on democracy. A recent study by Sato et al. (2023) addresses this gap by analysing the impact of misinformation and manipulation on political systems, distinguishing between authoritarian and democratic regimes.
The findings confirm the detrimental impact of misinformation and disinformation on the quality of democracy, regardless of the type of democratic regime. Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, disinformation is employed as a tool for authoritarian government propaganda, serving to maintain the regime and reducing the likelihood of democratization.
In contrast to autocracies, the presence of disinformation in democracies has been observed to result in increasing levels of political polarisation between those who believe the false information and tend to align themselves to illiberal or anti-democratic movements, and those who do not believe the false information and tend to align themselves with democratic movements. This leads to higher levels of mobilization on both sides, which in turn makes the outcomes less predictable.
Sato et al. (2023) cited the example of Brazil, where the illiberal trend was reversed due to the strong mobilization of the democratic civil society (see also Tomini, Gibril, & Bochev, 2023).
Disseminating Misinformation: Behavioral Patterns and Influencing Factors
The survey was conducted in two stages over a 12-day period. In the initial wave, respondents evaluated ten headlines. In the second wave, respondents were asked to rate eight headlines in the same way as in wave 1, and then to answer questions relating to their socioeconomic and political inclinations. Feedback on the veracity of the headlines was not provided to respondents until the conclusion of the second wave. The survey was conducted in four European countries: Germany, Ireland, Poland and Spain. All survey documentation was translated into the four relevant languages, with some questions tailored to specific countries.
The analysis of the survey data yielded two key outcomes: the probability of accurately determining the veracity of news items and the likelihood of sharing such news on social media. Firstly, we examine who is more likely to correctly assess the veracity of news items. Our findings indicate that there is no discernible difference in the ability of individuals to correctly classify true or false headlines. The results demonstrate that individuals are generally proficient at accurately identifying whether a headline is true or false. The average accuracy rate among respondents is 68.4%, which is a noteworthy achievement.
It is notable that respondents demonstrated a significantly lower ability to classify news items with political content. This indicates that political biases and preferences may play a significant role in influencing the accuracy of news classification. Additionally, our findings suggest that individuals who admit having previously trusted misinformation are not as good as other individuals in detecting the nature of the headlines they face.
Secondly, we assess the extent to which participants would be willing to share the headlines they have read on social media. The results of the misinformation experiment demonstrate that most adult individuals are able to identify misinformation and are not inclined to disseminate it. Only a minority of this group is willing to take action against the source of misinformation and disinformation. A second group of individuals are capable of identifying misinformation and disinformation but are sharing them with others online for a variety of reasons. A third group of individuals, who are sharing misinformation without identifying it as such, should learn to evaluate information more effectively, including its source.
The study highlights the need to gain a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between socio-economic factors and media literacy. In light of the ongoing challenge posed by misinformation to informed public discourse and democratic processes, these insights are vital for the development of effective strategies to enhance public understanding and resilience against misinformation.
Further research should investigate the effectiveness of educational initiatives and policy measures tailored to different demographic groups in reducing the spread of misinformation. By identifying the factors that influence the detection and dissemination of misinformation, this research contributes to the broader effort to protect democratic values and promote a well-informed citizenry in the digital age.
Building Resilience Against Misinformation: The Role of Competence and Education
The results of the experiment together with the existing literature on misinformation and disinformation provided information for the design of the learning process on the competence of information judgement as defined in the EU-funded DEMOCRAT project (see Table X). The assessment of information should not only refer to the evaluation of the reliability and accuracy of the information sources and information itself, but also include the reaction of individuals to identified mis- or disinformation. This is in line with recent research on this topic.
Table 1: Key competences of responsible democratic citizenship
| Knowledge | Skills | Attitudes |
|---|---|---|
| Being competent to judge what is reliable information and what is not, knowing how to assess the reliability of data received and interpret it. | Being aware of tools for searching, finding information and assessing its reliability and veracity. | Always ready to double-check the veracity and reliability of information. |
There are several studies that examine the motivation behind the sharing of misinformation. These include studies on the signalling of group affiliation (Brady et al., 2020), self-promotion (Islam et al., 2021), conspiratorial thinking (Melchior & Oliveira, 2024), political extremism and the inciting of chaos (Petersen, 2023), as well as studies that explore entertainment purposes (Jahanbakhsh et al., 2021; Acerbi, 2019; Tandoc et al., 2018; Waruwu et al., 2020).
Moreover, the potential influence of social media platforms in amplifying misinformation has been investigated (Ceylan et al., 2023; Lindström et al., 2021). A study of Altay et al. (2020) suggests that the concerns about losing one’s own social and personal reputation may be a significant factor to reduce the probability that identified misinformation will be shared without marking it as misinformation. The third group of people, who are sharing the misinformation without having it identify it as such, should learn to evaluate better information, but also its source.
The research into how individuals evaluate information and react to misinformation has highlighted two key points. Firstly, there are inherent limitations to an individual’s ability to assess the reliability and accuracy of information. Secondly, it is crucial to understand how citizens respond to questionable information and misinformation. This has led to refinement in the definition of information competence, placing greater emphasis on the reaction stage, as the reaction to any information, especially doubtful information, is critical to reduce the spread of misinformation.
Authors: Daniel Montolio & Karsten Krüger
