In an age where the line between fact and fiction can be as thin as a spider’s web, it’s no surprise that misinformation spreads like wildfire, especially on the internet. For our discerning readers who have seen decades of societal change and are no strangers to the evolution of media, the challenge of navigating this landscape is all too real. But what do you do when you encounter false claims, especially among friends and family? Do you engage in a battle of wits, armed with facts and evidence, or is there a better way?
A recent paper has shed light on an alternative approach that might just save you from the frustration of fruitless debates. It’s called the ‘bypassing technique’, and it could be the key to changing minds without the headache.
We’ve all been there—a family gathering or a catch-up with friends where someone drops a bombshell of a claim that seems to defy logic. Your instinct might be to correct them on the spot, armed with the latest research or a quick Google search. However, the Annenberg Public Policy Centre (APPC) suggests that this method, while well-intentioned, isn’t the most effective way to sway opinions.
Their research indicates that directly contradicting misinformation with facts doesn’t usually lead to a change in attitude. It’s a bit like trying to extinguish a grease fire with water—it seems like the right thing to do, but it only makes the situation worse.
So, what is this bypassing technique, and why might it be more successful? Instead of directly confronting the false claim, bypassing involves presenting positive counterclaims about the topic. This method doesn’t engage with the misinformation directly but rather introduces new, constructive information that can reshape the conversation.
For instance, if someone expresses concern that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause allergies, rather than disputing that claim, you might highlight how GMOs are helping to address global food shortages and improve nutrition. This positive spin doesn’t validate the misinformation but offers a different perspective that can be more palatable and less confrontational.
The APPC’s research involved six experiments comparing the traditional fact-checking approach with bypassing. The results consistently showed that bypassing was more effective at improving attitudes towards the topics in question, such as acceptance of 5G technology.
Bypassing is akin to a verbal form of aikido—you’re not clashing with your opponent but rather redirecting the energy of the conversation to a more positive outcome.
It’s important to note that bypassing isn’t about changing deeply held beliefs; it’s about influencing attitudes towards policies or technologies. Someone might maintain their belief that GMOs are harmful but can still come to appreciate their role in preventing hunger worldwide.
Changing beliefs is a complex psychological process, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Moreover, it’s worth considering whether it’s always necessary or ethical to attempt to change someone’s beliefs. What bypassing offers is a way to foster a more open-minded attitude towards certain topics without the need for confrontation.
Misinformation is a challenge we all encounter, but the way we respond can make a difference. The bypassing technique offers a fresh approach to navigating these conversations with less friction and more openness. It allows for a more harmonious exchange of ideas and can lead to a greater willingness to accept different viewpoints. So, next time you’re faced with a dubious claim, remember that sometimes the best defence is a positive offence.
Have you ever tried a similar strategy when discussing misinformation? How do you typically handle false claims in conversations? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below—we’d love to hear from you!
Also read: Will the misinformation bill impede freedom of speech?
