Nothing to say, yet
Transcription
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, people heavily relied on cleaning and sanitizing surfaces to prevent the spread of the virus. However, the CDC later released evidence that the risk of contracting COVID-19 from surfaces was low compared to other factors like mask-wearing and air circulation. Despite this, many people, including myself, continued to sanitize surfaces out of habit. This is due to the continued influence effect, where behavior remains unchanged even when the belief behind it is proven false. Misinformation also plays a role, as people tend to accept information that supports their views and discredit information that contradicts them. This is known as disconfirmation bias. Even when corrected, misinformation can still influence our thinking and decision-making. It's important to challenge our beliefs and fact-check ourselves, our friends, and the media to ensure we have accurate information. I would think most every American remembers the harsh smell of Clorox from behind a surgical mask, the bleached coat elbows from a freshly sterilized desk, the sold-out shelves of Purell at the grocery store next to the ghost town that used to be the paper product aisle. This was our reality during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. When news and information first began circulating, COVID was treated like many other viruses that spread via direct contact with contaminated objects. So, along with the recommended social distancing and state-by-state regulations, many schools, households, and businesses scrubbed, wiped, and squeegeed every surface that could possibly pick up an infection. It wasn't until many months later that the CDC released evidence that the risk of contracting COVID-19 from direct contact with objects or surfaces. They called fomites, was, and I quote, generally considered to be low, end quote, in comparison to other variables, such as mask wearing and air circulation. Still, many Americans, myself included, continued to keep hand sanitizer clothes and high-touch surfaces far, far away. Why? A social psychology idea called the continued influence effect may explain this. This effect is when human behavior remains changed even when the belief driving the behavior is proved to be false. Welcome to another episode of Totally Psyched, where we dive into the social motivations that reside deep within humankind. In this episode, we will be discussing continued influence effects, misinformation, and personal bias. The easiest of pills to swallow, right? Kidding, of course. But please bear with me as I dive in anyway. I began with an example of the continued influence effect from the pandemic because it was, and in some ways continues to be, a time where misinformation is incredibly variable. Studies regarding the virus were constantly being released, revised when new information presented itself, and released again. But once we grow comfortable with a certain fact, which proves to be misinformation, there still seems to be a human affinity for the old beliefs. According to a study by Patrick R. Rich and Maria S. Zaragoza of Kent State University, reliance on misinformation can be reduced, but not completely reversed. In this particular study, 357 undergraduate students were assigned to two groups, one experimental group exposed to misinformation and then corrected, and the other never misinformed at all. The experimental group was given a play-by-play of a case of jewelry theft from a police report where the owner's son was stated as the suspected culprit. The scientist then corrected the information, disproving the son's involvement. This misinformation, though proved to be false, continued to influence how the participants recalled the events of the report. The participants displayed the presence of a continued influence effect to misinformation. And here I will introduce the supporting cast to the scene, whom we call disconfirmation bias. Disconfirmation bias is the tendency to easily accept information that supports your views as facts, but scrutinize that which discredits it. Why though? Why not equally and objectively evaluate information? Well, it's not that easy. One, it doesn't feel good to be wrong, and we take it personally. And two, it takes neurological work to change belief systems. Starting to see the connection between the two when it comes to accepting misinformation? We have all heard the term fake news thrown about, but it's important to note that even when corrected, misinformation can still have a hold on your thinking and decision-making process, as well as the biases we may be holding for our previously accepted beliefs. Disconfirmation bias and the lingering effects of misinformation, though in some shape or form occurring in every human being, can be dangerous. That's why I feel it's important to understand and be aware of. Challenging the beliefs we hold dear is quite messy work, but a vital task in the pursuit of understanding ourselves and others, as well as ensuring what we have is top-quality information to base our decisions upon. So, with these psychological findings in mind, be sure to fact-check yourself, fact-check your friends—politely, of course, no pointing fingers—and fact-check your media consumption, because to gravitate towards what we think we know is to be human, but what we know may not always be the most true. Thanks for tuning in to this episode of Totally Psyched, and I will see you next time.
