Address science misinformation not by repeating the facts, but by building conversation and community, Anne Toomey says

Misinformation about scientific topics, including falsehoods such as vaccines cause autism and climate change being an entirely natural phenomenon, is an issue scientists have been discussing more and more. Widespread misinformation can lead to confusion about public health and environmental issues and can hinder those working to solve societal problems.

As an environmental social scientist who researches how science can have an impact on society, I seek effective ways to address misinformation.

There are many approaches that can work to some extent: for example, counteracting erroneous information with statements about scientific topics based on quality research that convey that the majority of experts agree, and “inoculating” people by preparing them to spot the fallacies in misinformation before they are first exposed to it.

But one of the most important ways to counteract misinformation is less about the facts and more about how those facts move within social networks and communities. In other words, it’s not enough for science to be right – it has to be accepted within people’s social circles to have any meaningful impact.

Can facts change minds?

Most people tend to assume that their knowledge and ideas are based on a rational, objective analysis of information. And that’s sometimes the case – if it’s snowing outside, people don’t insist that it’s sunny and warm, no matter how much they might like it to be.

Similarly, if a person comes across some novel fact in the news, such as the discovery of a new type of plant in the Amazon, they might just absorb that information and go about their day.

But rationality and the ability to embrace new information goes out the window when it comes up against ideas that challenge one’s preexisting worldviews or social identities. Such information can feel like a personal attack, leading the body to release cortisol, a hormone associated with stress. So, certain facts can feel threatening or offensive.

Compounding what is happening in the brain is what’s happening in people’s communities. Humans are social animals who turn to others they trust to help them understand what’s what. People are attuned to what is considered normal or acceptable in their social environments, so if their social group holds a particular belief, they are more likely to adopt that belief too.

One’s cultural and political identities often dictate how they interpret the same information, leading to disagreements even when presented with the same evidence.

These cultural identities explain why, for example, research finds that science-skeptical behaviors, such as vaccine hesitancy and climate denialism, tend to cluster in social and geographical pockets. In these pockets, people’s scepticism is reinforced by others with similar beliefs in their social network. In such cases, providing more evidence on a certain topic won’t help, and it may even result in people digging in their heels deeper to deny the evidence.

So if facts don’t necessarily change minds, what will?

Leveraging community networks

Recent research provides a solution for scientists and agencies hoping to correct misinformation: Rather than fighting against humans’ social nature, work with it.

When people see trusted individuals within their social networks holding a certain belief, that belief becomes more credible and easier to adopt. Leveraging those community connections can allow new ideas to gain traction.

One great example of using social networks to fight misinformation is how polio was eradicated in India. In 2009, India was the polio epicentre of the world, home to half of the world’s cases. These cases were largely clustered in vaccine-hesitant regions of the country. But by 2011, only two years later, India had only one case, and the country formally celebrated the eradication of polio in 2014.

How did India go from having half of the world’s cases to just one case in under two years?

Public health agencies asked volunteers from within vaccine-resistant communities to go on a listening campaign and become ambassadors for the vaccine. The volunteers were trained in interpersonal communication skills and tasked with spending time with parents. They built trust and rapport through regular visits.

Because the volunteers were known within the communities, they were able to make headway where health workers from urban areas had not. As they established rapport, hesitant parents shared their concerns, which typically went beyond polio to include other health issues.

Over time, more and more parents decided to vaccinate their children, until there was a tipping point and vaccination became a social norm. Perhaps most notably, the campaign led to full routine immunisation rates in some high-risk regions of the country.

India’s incredible success emphasises the importance of personal interactions for changing minds, which means moving beyond simply presenting the facts. Building trust, listening to concerns and engaging with communities in a meaningful way were integral to India’s eradication of polio.

The power of conversations

Another example of using the power of social networks to talk about controversial science topics comes from a method called deep canvassing. Deep canvassing is a unique communication method that involves going door to door to have conversations with members of the public.

But unlike traditional canvassing, which often focuses on rallying existing supporters, deep canvassing deliberately seeks to engage with those who hold different viewpoints, focusing efforts in communities where the topic is controversial.

Canvassers are trained to ask questions to better understand the other person’s experiences and perspectives on the issue, and then they share their own personal stories. This helps to create a human connection, where both parties feel heard and respected. This connection can help to reduce the negative emotions that may emerge when someone is challenged to rethink their beliefs.

One notable example of deep canvassing in action is the work of Neighbours United, an environmental nonprofit in Canada. They used a deep-canvassing approach to engage people in conversations about climate change.

They piloted the method in a rural, conservative community called Trail, home to one of the largest zinc and lead smelters in the world. Prior efforts to engage community members hadn’t had much of an effect, as taking action on climate change was largely seen as being in conflict with how many people made their living.

But the deep-canvassing method worked. Going door to door, the canvassers listened to residents’ concerns, shared their own stories about the impact of climate change and highlighted local environmental successes.

As a result, 1 in 3 residents shifted their views about the importance of taking action to address climate change. This broad community support led the City Council to vote to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050.

Sociologist Anthony Giddens described interpersonal interactions between experts, such as doctors or scientists, and the public as access points. He argued that these points are vital for maintaining trust in governmental and scientific institutions, such as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention or the Environmental Protection Agency.

These face-to-face interactions with experts can help people see them as kind, warm and professional, which can lead to trust.

These examples show that creating support for attitudes and behaviors based on science requires more than just presenting facts. It requires creating meaningful dialogue between skeptical groups and scientific messengers. It’s also a reminder that while social networks may serve to propagate misinformation, they can also be an important tool for addressing it.

*Anne Toomey, Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Science, Pace University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.