How Good Are We At Evaluating Communicated Information?

Abstract

Are we gullible? Can we be easily influenced by what others tell us, even if they do not deserve our trust? Many strands of research, from social psychology to cultural evolution suggest that humans are by nature conformist and eager to follow prestigious leaders. By contrast, an evolutionary perspective suggests that humans should be vigilant towards communicated information, so as not to be misled too often. Work in experimental psychology shows that humans are equipped with sophisticated mechanisms that allow them to carefully evaluate communicated information. These open vigilance mechanisms lead us to reject messages that clash with our prior beliefs, unless the source of the message has earned our trust, or provides good arguments, in which case we can adaptively change our minds. These mechanisms make us largely immune to mass persuasion, explaining why propaganda, political campaigns, advertising, and other attempts at persuading large groups nearly always fall in deaf ears. However, some false beliefs manage to spread through communication. I argue that most popular false beliefs are held reflectively, which means that they have little effect on our thoughts and behaviors, and that many false beliefs can be socially beneficial. Accepting such beliefs thus reflects a much weaker failure in our evaluation of communicated information than might at first appear.

Cause and effect: On the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs

“…Third, studies of media effects and information-seeking behavior show that people tend to selectively engage with information that coincides with their existing worldviews and reason away incongruent ideas [ 37 ]. Selective exposure and avoidance fueled by motivated reasoning affects conspiracy theories just as it does other forms of information [ 38 ]: while social media use is correlated with beliefs in conspiracy theories [ 17 ], these correlations are conditional on users’ levels of conspiracy thinking [ 39 ] and other worldviews, predispositions, and identities [ 7 ].…”

Emotions in misinformation studies: Distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance

“…Information that aligns with our prior beliefs, comes from a source we trust, or provides good arguments has a higher chance of being accepted (Mercier, 2017(Mercier, , 2021. We will not believe information that does not pass these checks, even if it is highly emotional.…”

“…An alternative perspective on how emotions influence misinformation belief is based on the evolutionary theory of communication. It suggests that communication signals, in order to evolve, have to benefit both the sender and the receiver (Mercier, 2021;Sperber et al, 2010). For communication to remain evolutionarily stable, there have to be mechanisms that prevent senders from routinely deceiving and exploiting receivers, that is, signals have to be (mostly) honest (Mercier, 2021;Sperber et al, 2010).…”

“…It suggests that communication signals, in order to evolve, have to benefit both the sender and the receiver (Mercier, 2021;Sperber et al, 2010). For communication to remain evolutionarily stable, there have to be mechanisms that prevent senders from routinely deceiving and exploiting receivers, that is, signals have to be (mostly) honest (Mercier, 2021;Sperber et al, 2010). For instance, if we could easily be deceived by faking anger, others would frequently take advantage of that.…”

“…However, if they did that frequently, we would start ignoring their anger, and they would stop using it when it stops working for them. In this framework, people are skeptical by default (Altay, 2022;Mercier, 2017), and only trust information if it passes several vigilant checks for trustworthiness (Dezecache & Mercier, 2022;Mercier, 2021;Sperber et al, 2010).…”