Let’s be honest, Christmas can be a magical time of year, but it can also be an inter-relational minefield with various taboo topics that spring up – be it etiquette around who helps (too much or too little) to cook dinner, the stresses concerning the cost of living, or differing expectations about gift-buying. All these issues can feel frustrating, but then there are the dreaded moments when conversation turns to more controversial topics, when that “one” person – be they friend, relative, or acquaintance – starts opining on some questionable ideas or conspiracy claims.
We’ve likely all experienced these tense moments; it’s to be expected when people come together for the first time in ages, coop themselves up for multiple hours, and have to negotiate old dynamics. But while this can be a bit awkward for some, it can also be deeply distressing for others, leading to heated arguments and breeding deeper resentments.
So how can we negotiate these turbulent conversations as they evolve this Christmas? Is there a way to keep the peace while also addressing some of the content or is it better to simply avoid the problem all together?
Know what you’re dealing with
Sometimes these encounters can feel like a bit of a battleground, though seeing them as such has limited value – mostly because battles inevitably have “winners” and “losers”, and this is not a game for point-scoring. Nevertheless, as with so many challenges, the first step is to know what you’re dealing with. For instance, there is a difference between someone who bases their position on distorted, incomplete, or manipulated information they have received secondhand through word of mouth or social media. In this instance, the information may be unintentionally inaccurate (misinformation) and not meant to cause harm.
However, in other instances someone may make controversial claims that are based on false information or accounts that were deliberately manufactured to manipulate, mislead, or cause damage (disinformation).
Separating misinformation from disinformation can be challenging, especially as both can contribute to broader issues like conspiracy theories, propaganda, and other expressions of “fake news”. Conspiracy theories in particular grow from content that is not supported by the best available evidence, but rather thrives on false information woven together with partial truths to create complex narratives, usually ones that explain powerful people or institutions with secret agendas.
Who is most likely to spread misinformation?
To be clear, no one is immune to mis- or disinformation. Over the last decade, changes in how information is shared across the internet and social media have both increased the rate and scale of information-sharing across the world. With such large quantities of information out there, it is all too easy to accidentally accept some claims as valid when they really aren’t. Recognizing this is important and could prevent some arguments around the Christmas table; we’re all guilty of taking on some distorted information in our busy lives. But this isn’t the whole story, as some people are more prone or willing to engage with misinformation and to actively spread it.
There are various factors at play here, and many of them relate to broader cultural shifts in overall trust in institutions and individuals. To say this is a multifaceted and complex issue is to put it lightly. For instance, the rise of the internet has coincided with a gradual decline in trust towards the media and the press more generally, which has led many people to seek information from alternative, less credible sources. Social media platforms and blogs have allowed non-journalists to communicate with huge audiences, often without the need to verify their views or ideas. In order to compete in this increasingly crowded sphere, traditional news organizations have turned to “clickbait” and focusing on trending topics rather than more important issues. This has further undermined public trust and respect in these institutions.
At the same time, trust in scientists as individuals has decreased since the pandemic, with more people becoming suspicious of their potential biases and supposed inflexibility. This came to a head in the COVID-19 pandemic, when a combination of factors – including the proliferation of mis- and disinformation – contributed to a growing sense that scientists were not the objective and removed thinkers they are meant to be.
On an individual level, there are also psychological mechanisms that may make people more likely to encounter and proliferate mis- and disinformation. For instance, a recent study conducted by Professor Peter Fonagy, University College London (UCL) Psychology and Language Sciences, and colleagues has shown that people who are either too trusting or too mistrustful are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. The study examined “epistemic trust”, a term used to describe how much a person trusts the information they get from other people. In this case, the researchers explored epistemic trust in relation to fake news.
Participants in the UK were asked to complete the epistemic Trust, Mistrust and Credulity questionnaire, which measured their responses on a scale of “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. This allowed the researchers to assess whether participants demonstrated mistrust (avoiding or rejecting information) or credulity (believing information easily without question). They were then asked to fill in other questionnaires to measure how much they believed in conspiracy theories more generally, especially those related to COVID-19 and vaccination hesitancy, and how well they were able to think analytically or intuitively.
Finally, participants were asked to rate the accuracy of 20 news headlines and to indicate whether they would share them on social media, which reflected their ability to distinguish between real and fake information.
The team found that people who are too trusting were the worst at identifying fake or real news while also being more likely to believe fake news associated with COVID-19. At the same time, both mistrust and credulity were linked to believing conspiracy theories and being hesitant towards vaccines. Interestingly, the study found that those who’d experienced adversity during their childhoods were not only more likely to mistrust information from others but also to believe things too quickly, leading them to struggle with distinguishing between fake and real news.
This is not the only psychological factor that may make someone more likely to spread fake news. In 2022, the psychologists M. Asher Lawson and Hemant Kakkar found that, contrary to popular belief, the sharing of misinformation in the USA is not necessarily associated with conservative political ideologies per se, but rather a subset of people with low levels of conscientiousness. This is an important part of the Big Five personality taxonomy that accounts for a person’s propensity to follow socially prescribed norms and rules, among other things.
Those who score highly for conscientiousness tend to demonstrate more “positive” traits, like orderliness, impulse control, reliability, virtue, and conventionality. In contrast, those with low scores are often impulsive, less reliable, less diligent, and view rules as restrictive and limiting.
According to Lawson and Kakkar’s study, conservatives who scored low on conscientiousness were 2.5 times more likely to share misinformation than the combined average of low-conscientious liberals, high-conscientious liberals, and high-conscientious conservatives. But while investigating why this may be the case, the researchers also found that this subset of conservatives were also motivated to spread chaos – a desire to disrupt, disregard, and to bring down established social and political institutions to assert dominance and superiority for their own group.
This subject of motivations is a crucial point for understanding why some people actively perpetuate false information or conspiracy theories. It is one thing to fall for misinformation, but it is another to want to use it for specific gains, personal, political, or otherwise.
People who are motivated by obtaining power, and influencing others, may share misinformation without concern for its accuracy, as a form of brokerage to gain a following and to control narratives.
Professor Ana Guinote
Another recent study led by a team at UCL found that those who are motivated by power and a desire to influence others are more likely to share fake news posts, even if they know the information is not true. Over the course of four separate experiments, 1,882 participants were presented with a series of real and fake social media posts. Participants were asked to select posts they would be inclined to share on social media, while also filling out questionnaires that measured their power values (through abstract life guides concerning power, influence, and wealth), their personality (related to their dominance trait), their desire to post on social media to influence others, and the amount of satisfaction they get from sharing information.
The team found that people motivated by power were more likely to share fake news, but no more likely to share real news.
Interestingly, those who scored higher on dominance also shared more fake news in the experiment. They were also more likely to report having knowingly done so in the recent past, suggesting a level of self-awareness about the content they share and choosing to do so despite its inaccuracies.
“Our findings suggest that people who are motivated by obtaining power, and influencing others, may share misinformation without concern for its accuracy, as a form of brokerage to gain a following and to control narratives,” Professor Ana Guinote, UCL Psychology and Language Sciences, told IFLScience.
Previous research has suggested that people are more likely to share misinformation if it is consistent with their beliefs and individual goals, such as political point-scoring during an election. So it is possible that those who knowingly proliferate such misinformation do so to gain influence.
“One difficulty in controlling the spread of unreliable information is related to conceptions of truth and the value of facts,” Guinote added. Past research has “described this as the post-truth era. Power-motivated individuals can fuel post-truth sentiments. In our studies, they disproportionately spread unreliable news headlines with varied social and political content, which was not aligned with particular perspectives. Furthermore, they were aware of having spread misinformation in the past, and chose to continue doing it anyway. In so doing, power-motivated individuals showed moral disengagement regarding the consequences of spreading misinformation.”
However, this is not to say that all individuals who desire power spread misinformation, nor are they morally disengaged.
“Some individuals seek power to advance collective goals, and the interests of groups. These individuals act as leaders and are less prone to moral disengagement. Similarly, having power per se does not trigger the spread of misinformation.”
How can you combat it?
The results of these various studies demonstrate the problems fake information and those who spread it pose. If the issue is simply that someone got something wrong then it may be possible to gently address the error, but what about if you’re faced with a relative or friend who may be using fake news and conspiracy beliefs for more deeply entrenched and personal reasons? In case of the latter situation, counter evidence, fact-checking and discussions over the “truth” are less likely to work and will probably lead to further arguments and frustrations.
This is why understanding people’s motivations is important, and what attracts them to the belief or idea they’re reporting. Although the research explored above indicates that certain personalities may engage with and share misinformation for personal gain, one’s adherence to a belief is not necessarily predicated on that alone, especially when it comes to conspiracy theories. People may subscribe to these grander narratives because they want more certainty and control during turbulent times (conspiracies rarely include gray areas and are usually easy narratives with specific people to blame), or they may support a belief that makes them feel more positive about themselves and the groups they belong to. As such, a desire to engage with misinformation may not necessarily stem from a desire for chaos or power but can be related to broader issues.
So with this in mind, there are some practical steps we can take when dealing with people who champion conspiracy theories or promote fake news. There are some excellent resources to help here as well.
Firstly, as mentioned above, it is important to try to get to grips with why someone holds the views they have or might be wanting to draw attention to a specific claim. This can be achieved by actively listening to them and asking questions that allow them to elaborate on their reasoning while also not aggressively defending a counter-position.
Secondly, adopt an approach that is conducive for conversation, not combat. An approach known as conversational receptiveness can help establish a powerful way to bridge the gap between perspectives and can invite someone to share more about why they may believe as they do. It then becomes easier to engage with the tools they’re leveraging to reach their conclusions.
For instance, telling someone they’re “wrong”, “stupid”, and so on will only create more hostility, especially as people often believe they have put time into the views they have. Instead, we can engage with discussing critical thinking skills and redirecting them to aspects of the overarching belief that invite more scrutiny – a kind of, “It’s important to consider the evidence and to ask questions when it comes to these things. I’ve always been curious about this aspect, which to me feels troublesome for X, Y, Z reasons.”
It can also be a case of examining the sources – especially those on social media – that they suggest and showing them why they are less credible than others. Social media literacy is an important factor when it comes to spreading and believing misinformation. Trying to encourage someone to think about why someone shared or produced information in the first place can be a valuable step.
As Guinote explained, “Social media users would benefit from understanding the values, dispositions and goals of people who post or share content online. They could pay more attention to their intentions (i.e., engage in mentalising). Self-knowledge is also important. Some people may be more prone to the influence of dominant others on social media, for instance, if they are trusting or not analyse information before sharing.”
We can all benefit from this approach, especially if misinformation has been created to generate outrage from its readers.
“More generally, reflecting before sending information, and fact-checking are protective measures. Information that is novel and emotional, in particular, if it creates outrage (disgust and anger) could be misinformation and should be cross-checked.”
These methods may create opportunities to reaffirm how conspiracy theories are not the norm and to show that those who do not believe in them are not merely “sheep”. For instance, discussing the motivations behind being pro-vaccine, explaining why people encourage vaccinations to help safeguard others, and showing how normative perspectives view vaccines can help reduce antagonism from anti-vaccine champions.
Ultimately, unless you’re dealing with someone who is just interested in stoking more disruptive outcomes for society as a whole, this type of approach can open up communications while also gently addressing misconceptions. It above all means you’re not attempting to have a fight, even if it can feel like one is coming. Gaining someone’s trust is an important step in preventing them from becoming more entrenched or radical in their beliefs.
At the same time, this more moderated approach could also spare a lot of hurt and frustration around the Christmas table, ensuring that the only thing to get skewered is the food and not one another.
