Karsyn Lemmons

This research paper was originally published on May 9, 2019.

A survey conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs for Buzzfeed News found that fake news headlines fool Americans on average 75% of the time. Looking further, not only do these people find the stories to be persuasive, they consider them credible. In an age of information, discrediting these types of articles should be considered easy with countless pages of facts and evidence at our finger tips. Shouldn’t we have greater media literacy when it comes to spotting these sensational headlines instead of choosing to share it with hundreds of our friends and family? Why do the American people find fake news to be so alluring? And how is the extent of this misinformation so widespread? The answer: Confirmation bias. 

What is confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek out information that agrees with or supports one’s already preexisting views. It’s present in most aspects of life – in politics, government, even largely in the scientific community where scientists might accept certain types of evidence that support their hypothesis while simultaneously neglecting information that goes against it (Ohler, 2017). This type of cognitive bias also happens to be largely present in our news media and social platforms. While it’s natural instinct to attempt to sort fact from fiction in our everyday lives, this type of thinking is erroneous and works mostly as a “limitation in our thinking that can cause flaws in our judgement” (Lartaud, 2018). In this paper I will discuss how confirmation bias shapes the way people interpret the news and how the spread of misinformation correlates with this bias. 

How did confirmation bias evolve with misinformation? 

Confirmation bias didn’t evolve overnight though there has definitely been an acknowledgeable increase in news media confirmation bias in recent generation since more people than ever before have access to a multitude of tools such as radio, television, computers, and other digital devices. Concurrently, news media has evolved from the 6 o’clock evening news to a constant 24-hour news cycle in a matter of generations, providing a plethora of sources for the average individual to obtain their news and information. To contrast the availability of digital information to that of newspapers or the beginning of broadcasting, one researcher says the latter provided “messages with uniform levels of credibility that are often also very homogenous regarding political stance” (Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, et al., 2014). This would appear different from the news content produced today, suggesting the influx of differing news medias has – in addition to the many benefits – produced harmful side effects. Another researcher described it by saying “the “pull” nature of the Internet inherently affords individuals the opportunity to engage with whatever information they choose while ignoring the rest” (Bimber & Davis 2003). One must consider that with the increasing access to digital and social sharing platforms, there will be a correlating rise in low-credibility sources claiming to know the ‘untold truth’ that other media sources refuse to tell the public. This is fake news in its truest form.

 According to a Pew Research study, social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are main sources of news for many Americans today (Zantal-Wiener, 2018) so it’s worth taking a moment to note the rise in click-bait style articles appearing on these popular platforms (mainly Facebook) in past years. For example, we saw a rise of unreliable websites claiming to be ‘news outlets’ during the immergence of fake news around the 2016 election. While articles released by these sites lacked credibility, they spread like wildfire across the platforms, often boasting headlines with racist or xenophobic or misogynistic undertones that served as confirmation for conceptions already previously held by the individuals that chose to share that content. To put it simply, the presence of such influences “suggests that people and the algorithms behind social media platforms are vulnerable to manipulation” (Luca Ciampaglia and Menczer, 2018) thus increasing the chances of the spread of this type of false information.

Another mechanism that causes misinformation to be so attractive to one’s conformational biases is its appeal to emotion. More than it appeals to logic, fake news and misinformation has the ability to connect with one’s emotions. This is seen in instances which one seeks out information that support their views in a positive/productive manner (i.e. President A has cut taxes, saved Americans millions, promises all dogs will soon have homes) and therefore they feel validated to provide further support in the President’s efforts, whether or not these statements are credible. Yet more often than not, confirmation bias is demonstrated in the confirmation of negative and upsetting ideas. Imagine the search results someone would find if they were to search “President A is a terrorist” or “President A is a thief”. Whether the news is factual or not, the information you’re receiving already conforms to your notions of that individual, further allowing you to maintain your beliefs and feel validated knowing that someone else is reporting on information you hold to be true. 

Who practices confirmation bias?

Confirmation bias is not partisan or belonging to certain demographics or limited geographically. It is both left-wing and right-wing. It’s a natural part of our thinking and a natural part of how we categorize and sort data. It has been described as ‘human’ and ‘unconscious’ (Olfer, 2017), making this another reason confirmation bias is particularly dangerous. If someone is unaware of their own practices, how can they actively work to adjust them? According to researchers Luca Ciampaglia and Menczer, the “brain can deal with only a finite amount of information, and too many incoming stimuli can cause information overload”

(Luca Ciampaglia and Menczer, 2018). And so what’s the inevitable result? Seeking out news media that already conforms to one’s ideas and beliefs is the default because it’s purely easier to process. 

  While everyone is a possible suspect of confirmation biases contributing to the spread of fake news and misinformation, some are guiltier than others. A study conducted by Princeton University found that “people 65 years of age and over are seven times more likely to share fake news than those aged 18-29.” (Popken, 2019) This is in part due to large technological developments occurring after many of the members of this generation were grown and simply missed out on the chance to develop a certain level of media literacy. These statistics can be asserted from the fact that these Americans “now in their 60s and beyond, lack the level of digital media literacy necessary to reliably determine the trustworthiness of news encountered online” (Popken, 2019). This only goes to further prove the point of how media literacy “builds an understanding of the role of media in society as well as essential skills of inquiry necessary for citizens of a democracy”, as is said according to the Center for Media Literacy.

Consequences of continuing these practices?

As discussed earlier, no one is completely free of the subconscious practices of confirmation bias, being that it “can lead even the most experienced experts astray” (Nichols, 2017). A specific way in which confirmation bias may disguise itself is in the form of echo chambers. Echo chambers are media environments in which people experience only news that supports their existing views and, without being challenged to think differently, according to an article by Journalism in the Digital Age. The presence of echo chambers has been given great rise with the advanced developments of social media and information sharing platforms. Take YouTube for example. If you are to search only conspiracy theories on YouTube, not only are you going to be greeted with a wide variety of content all touting secret governmental and political theories you may or may not agree with, but YouTube is going to log this search history and continue to suggest content for you involving conspiracy theories, thus you are able to continue engaging with members of this community who share and reaffirm your belief in such theories. Despite the fact they may hold little to no credible value, you are validated in the sharing of this misinformation simply because it aligns with your own confirmation bias as well as your like-minded peers.

Another of the hazards of confirmation bias is that by only seeking out and interpreting information that already conforms to your preexisting beliefs, you are limiting yourself from additional information that may have been imperative in the understanding of new, factual ideas and concepts. According to an article published by Pace University, “psychologists agree that confirmation bias and overconfidence phenomenon are contributing to the division” (DelGrosso). If the US continues to willfully neglect its confirmation bias, society runs the risk of a deeper divide between left-wing and right-wing media outlets. And the existence of such a divide only works to hinder future successes and progress that would otherwise be overcome were it not for each side believing themselves to be wholly correct. 

What ways are news and media outlets working to combat the spread of misinformation?

In recent years, journalistic organizations and news media outlets have begun combatting the spread of misinformation and fake news before it reaches the viewer. Facebook, for instance, launched an initiative in 2018, vowing to correct the spread of misinformation shared on its platform after receiving backlash concerning its part in fake news surrounding the 2016 election. And to their credit, this initiative has actually been successful. A study conducted by Stanford found that “user interactions with false content rose steadily on both Facebook and Twitter through the end of 2016. Since then, however, interactions with false content have fallen sharply on Facebook while continuing to rise on Twitter, with the ratio of Facebook engagements to Twitter shares decreasing by 60 percent” (Allcott, Hunt, et al., 2018). Other large platforms have also begun to take up certain practices in stopping of misinformation in efforts to stop the spread. 

Journalists have begun to stop concerning themselves with ‘telling both sides to every story’. In stories of hate and violence, it’s necessary to share the words of those made victims, but not essential to give voice to those that cause the violence. This may sound apparent but it isn’t always so immediately apparent, as is demonstrated in the Washington Post’s article concerning Nick Sandmann and political protest that has now resulted in a major lawsuit. 

In an interview by Laura Hazard Owen, she speaks with danah boyd, founder of research institute Data and Society, who highlights the particular ways in which extremists may try and disguise their intentions, saying they “have learned how to use irony and slippery rhetoric to mask themselves as conservatives and argue they are the victims” (Hazard Owen, 2018). Boyd goes on to discuss how giving voice to both sides only works to further the spread of misinformation. For the audiences who agree with this information, it further validates for them that their beliefs are correct. All of this works entirely against the mission and goals of those reliable news outlets who seek to bring the truth to their viewers.

What steps to take moving forward?  

What is the first step moving forward?  In a PBS Digital Studios education clip, Myles Bess proposes to viewers that they exam where the majority of one’s media intake comes from and consider how that may shape a certain world view. Do they have one media outlet you prefer over others? Has it become the top source they depend on? He asks the viewer to consider how a broadening of sources may alter one’s view and bring one added facts that had not previously been presented.

Second, an article by Common Sense Media argues that parents and educators should take actions and advocate for the instruction of media literacy for younger ages. Digital media literacy can play a key role in recognizing biases and “media literacy helps kids learn how to determine whether something is credible”. According to statistics provided by the Bureau of Labor, 69.7 percent of high school graduates enrolled in college in October 2016. Of these students we can only anticipate that around half will obtain four-year degrees. That means that anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of Americans are going without quality media literacy training and may be left vulnerable to manipulative media outlets framing certain stories in intentionally deceptive formats.

 As our world becomes more technology dependent, it’s been suggested that the US must “insist our schools teach media literacy and digital citizenship as a matter of course” while many children are receiving their education, because “whether children are consuming or producing media, they should be able to distinguish entertainment from journalism, and opinion from factual presentation” (Ohler, 2017). Moving forward, citizens should be encouraged to seek information from diverse sources, collect the facts, and formulate ideas of their own. Ignoring the existence of one’s confirmation bias could result in ignoring facts relevant to a greater understanding of one’s community and one’s world. 

Bibliography

Allcott, Hunt, et al. “Trends in the Diffusion of Misinformation on Social Media.” Stanford.edu, Oct. 2018, web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fake-news-trends.pdf.

Bimber B., Davis R. (2003). Campaigning online: The Internet in U.S. elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

DelGrosso, Samantha. “Left, Right, Center: Confirmation Bias in Politics.” Social Psychology Perspectives, socialpsych.blogs.pace.edu/author/sd09025p/.

Hazard Owen, Laura. “Facebook’s Attempts to Fight Fake News Seem to Be Working. (Twitter’s? Not so Much.).” Nieman Lab, 21 Sept. 2018, www.niemanlab.org/2018/09/facebooks-attempts-to-fight-fake-news-seem-to-be-working-twitters-not-so-much/. 

Knobloch-Westerwick, Silvia, et al. “Confirmation Bias in Online Searches: Impacts of Selective Exposure Before an Election on Political Attitude Strength and Shifts.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 10 Nov. 2014, academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/20/2/171/4067554. 

Lartaud, Derek. “Why Do Our Brains Love Fake News?” KQED Education, 13 Mar. 2018, ww2.kqed.org/education/2017/05/03/why-do-our-brains-love-fake-news/. 

Luca Ciampaglia, Giovanni, and Fillipo Menczer. “These Are the Three Types of Bias That Explain All the Fake News, Pseudoscience, and Other Junk in Your News Feed.” Nieman Lab, 20 June 2018, www.niemanlab.org/2018/06/these-are-the-three-types-of-bias-that-explain-all-the-fake-news-pseudoscience-and-other-junk-in-your-news-feed/.

Nichols, Tom. “Reality Check: the Dangers of Confirmation Bias.” OUPblog, 6 Mar. 2017, blog.oup.com/2017/03/confirmation-bias-danger/.

Ohler, Jason. “Confirmation Bias and Media Literacy.” Media Lit Moments, Oct. 2017, www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/connections/Confirmation%20Bias%20and%20Media%20Literacy.pdf.

Popken, Ben. “Age, Not Politics, Is Biggest Predictor of Who Shares Fake News on Facebook, Study Finds.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, Jan. 2019, www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/age-not-politics-predicts-who-shares-fake-news-facebook-study-n957246. 

“What Is Media Literacy? A Definition…and More.” What Is Media Literacy? A Definition…and More. | Center for Media Literacy | Empowerment through Education | CML MediaLit Kit ™ |, www.medialit.org/reading-room/what-media-literacy-definitionand-more.

“What Is Media Literacy, and Why Is It Important?” Common Sense Media: Ratings, Reviews, and Advice, www.commonsensemedia.org/news-and-media-literacy/what-is-media-literacy-and-why-is-it-important.Zantal-Wiener, Amanda. “68% Of Americans Still Get Their News on Social Media, Even If They Don’t Trust It.” HubSpot, HubSpot, 14 Dec. 2018, blog.hubspot.com/news-trends/two-thirds-americans-still-get-news-on-social-media.