Conspiracy theories and fake photos related to recent hurricanes trade on our emotions to deceive us. Source: Wikilmages/Pixabay In late September, Hurricane Helene battered the southeast United States. About two weeks later, Hurricane Milton cut a brutal swath through Florida. The storms were devastating —massive property destruction and, even more tragically, the loss of lives. In the wake of both storms, misinformation complicated rescue and relief efforts, compounding the tragedies the hurricane victims had already faced. Employees of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were threatened with violence in response to supposed conspiracy theories that they would scam storm victims. For safety reasons, FEMA workers briefly stopped going door to door before continuing their relief efforts. Even meteorologists faced death threats because of false claims that they were controlling the weather. The absurdity of this was captured in a social media post by meteorologist Kate Nickolaou: “Murdering meteorologists won’t stop hurricanes. I can’t believe I just had to type that.”
It's Not Really Real, but It’s “Real on Some Deeper Level”
Other misinformation may seem tame by comparison. Artificial intelligence (AI) photos of a young girl crying while on a life raft holding a dog went viral despite the fact that they were obvious fakes. For example, the girl had too many fingers in one version of the photo. Amy Kremer, a state representative on the Republican National Committee, shared the false image on her social media; after discovering she had been deceived, she wrote: “I’m leaving it because it is emblematic of the trauma and pain people are living through right now.” Of course, this follow-up created yet another deception. Journalist Parker Molloy shared instances of people on social media “acknowledging that this image is AI but still insisting that it’s real on some deeper level.” This example may not seem to be a big deal, but misinformation in general—even less damaging examples—can lead to declines in public trust in democratic institutions, the media, and each other.
In The Atlantic, Charlie Warzel compared the it-feels-real phenomenon to Stephen Colbert’s invention of the word “truthiness” about 20 years ago. Colbert defined truthiness as “the belief in what you feel to be true rather than what the facts will support.” Are our emotions leading us to succumb to lies? Why does this happen, and how can we counter it?
Misinformation and Our Emotions
Misinformation has become so widespread in part because so much of it is designed to take advantage of our emotions. Psychologists Norbert Schwarz and Madeline Jalbert (2020) explained the research behind “what makes a message ‘feel’ true, even before we have considered its content in any detail.” They pointed out that ideally, we should ask ourselves these five questions: (1) Does this new information fit with what I know? (2) Does it make sense? (3) Do I trust the source? (4) What do other people think? (5) And is there evidence for it? Of course, one problem with this is that we don’t always take the time and effort to ask these questions, especially when our gut reaction makes us think it’s true.
Schwarz and Jalbert outline the reasons we skip over these steps, including repetition of the information (which we’ve previously written about), but also the factors that make things “feel” true. These include making the information easy to process, for instance, for written text, by using simple sentences and clear print, and, for photos, an easily understood story. That is, this simplicity makes information easier to process and, therefore, makes it feel more real. These criteria—brief, clear, and reliant on visuals—are often met by posts on social media, thus increasing the it-feels-real effect.
The first step in countering emotion-fueled misinformation is to slow down when you encounter new information, especially on social media, and notice what emotions you are experiencing. Next, ask yourself the five questions outlined above: If it’s surprising or nonsensical, from a dubious source with little evidence, and/or others are questioning it, then maybe you should question it, too. As Schwarz and Jalbert explain, “[T]he best protection against the influence of misinformation is skepticism at the time the information is first encountered.”