Understanding and Addressing Misinformation About Science (2025) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Misinformation About Science: Understanding the Current Context
3 Misinformation About Science: Understanding the Current Context
Pages 45-74
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 45... ...
, it is important to understand that these phenomena do not occur in a vacuum. Rather, individuals, the communities they are a part of, and their information ecosystems are all shaped by larger societal forces.
|
From page 46... ...
structural and systemic inequities. Next, we describe changes in the information ecosystems people inhabit, and the relevance of these changes for understanding misinformation about science.
|
From page 47... ...
First, public access to accurate information from science has long been recognized as important for informing rational public deliberation and decision making in democratic societies (Bächtiger et al., 2018; Dewey, 1923; Habermas, 1970)
|
From page 48... ...
Structural inequalities affect access to high-quality information from science.
|
From page 49... ...
. Experiences with medical racism, contextualized within broader histories of violence and oppression, contribute to inequality-driven mistrust in science and medical institutions among Black Americans, which can foster resistance to evidence-based communication and provide fertile ground for misinformation (Jaiswal et al., 2020)
|
From page 50... ...
Particularly for politicized scientific topics, such as climate change, people are more likely to make choices about who and what sources they deem credible based on perceived common interests or shared values (Lupia, 2013)
|
From page 51... ...
In addition, many researchers who investigate public perceptions of science have drawn important distinctions between one's ability to correctly identify scientific facts (e.g., Earth orbits the sun) and one's belief that the interests of scientists are aligned with one's own interests and the interests of one's community, or that scientific institutions are trustworthy (e.g., Brossard & Lewenstein, 2010)
|
From page 52... ...
SOURCE: Committee generated using data from NORC's General Social Survey Data accessed from the GSS Data Explorer website at gssdataexplorer.norc.org.
|
From page 53... ...
. Public perceptions can also vary across various scientific fields and domains and across time.
|
From page 54... ...
. Additionally, a similar trend with respect to educational and medical institutions has been observed, with an overall decline in trust in both insti tutions across the political spectrum since 2018, and in some cases, there are notable gaps by political ideology (Davern et al., 2024; see Figure 3-3)
|
From page 55... ...
FIGURE 3-2 Trends in confidence in the scientific community based on partisan identity. SOURCE: Committee generated using data from NORC's General Social Survey Data accessed from the GSS Data Explorer website 55 at gssdataexplorer.norc.org.
|
From page 56... ...
to spread more rapidly as people seek out ways to make sense of an increasingly complex world. Societal Forces That May Warrant Further Study As scientists seek to better understand the changing patterns in trust in institutions overall, other social and societal factors may warrant further study.
|
From page 57... ...
SOURCE: Committee generated using data from NORC's General Social Survey Data accessed from the GSS Data Explorer website at gssdataexplorer.norc.org. for a detailed review of personal values)
|
From page 58... ...
. For example, sharing of misinformation on social media may in part be driven by a desire to either maintain or build social capital within a group, although some work finds that strong social ties can also increase the effectiveness of efforts to debunk misinformation (Pasquetto et al., 2022)
|
From page 59... ...
Below we discuss some of the most significant structural aspects to consider: audience fragmentation and hybrid media; the emergence of new information technologies and platforms, including artificial intelligence (AI) ; and context collapse.
|
From page 60... ...
. An individual can interact with a friend or colleague in person in one moment and then on social media in the next.
|
From page 61... ...
In the 21st century, the emergence of online platforms -- including certain social media applications, large search engines, and websites hosted on the internet (e.g., Abbott, 2007) -- has enabled the creation of a large volume of content through an increasing array of creators with limited moderation, increasing personalization of content and online social groups, and the consumption of content outside of its intended contexts (i.e., context collapse -- discussed in more detail below; Kümpel, 2020)
|
From page 62... ...
regulatory oversight in turn holds critical implications for the nature of the information ecosystem that individuals and communities inhabit, as various entities in that system (e.g., privately held companies that host social media platforms) have taken on management and moderation roles to varying extents and for diverse reasons that only sometimes align with the public interest.
|
From page 63... ...
Though much remains to be learned about how AI will shape the information ecosystem, it has increased the public availability of online tools that generate text, audio, images, and video that accurately mimic human activity. For example, large language models (LLMs)
|
From page 64... ...
. Indeed, such technological advancements have raised concerns about the role of AI in both proliferating and curtailing misinformation, as several deepfakes -- AI-generated images and videos that look real -- featuring prominent individuals have gone viral on social media (Ellery, 2023; Metz, 2021)
|
From page 65... ...
Unrestricted exposure to several competing narratives, as can frequently happen in our current information ecosystem,
|
From page 66... ...
Complex Interactions and Consequences It is important to note that not all changes in the broader information environment and context of contemporary life necessarily push in the direction of greater generation, dissemination, and/or uptake of misinformation about science. Under some conditions, for example, reduced barriers to entry into the digital information space may lead to better, fairer, and more just use of valid scientific information in collective or societal decision making, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.
|
From page 67... ...
. As science information is increasingly shared on social media platforms, automated algorithms based on users' personal profiles govern the visibility of this content, determining whether a given user is likely to encounter credible science information or not (Brossard & Scheufele, 2022)
|
From page 68... ...
Competing Interests and Public Relations The science information environment is also increasingly competitive, particularly in the United States' diverse and decentralized information ecosystem, which has relatively low support for publicly-funded independent media (Neff & Pickard, 2021)
|
From page 69... ...
. Predatory journals publish science entirely for profit and do not subject research to rigorous peer-review, essentially creating a "pay-to-play" model that can become a conduit for misinformation.
|
From page 70... ...
It is also more possible than ever for people to exist in different, fragmented information ecosystems that online platforms, other media, and interpersonal spaces make possible and readily accessible. While the evidence about the extent to which people exist in echo chambers or filter bubbles is mixed, it is clear that the contemporary information ecosystem makes it more possible than ever for people to be exposed to content -- often consumed without important, original context and nuance.
|
From page 71... ...
UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT CONTEXT 71 TABLE 3-1 Contextual Features and Factors That Influence Misinformation About Science Implications for misinformation Contextual features/factors Explanation/definition about science Systemic Role of A balance between the Technological shifts make it factors science in credibility and social more possible for people to shaping society capital of science to disseminate information on how people inform decision making an equal footing with science; interact and the power of people misinformation can disrupt with to make choices in a being able to make informed information democratic society choices in a democracy Structural Inequalities based on Societal factors shape the Inequalities education level, race information ecosystems or ethnicity, primary that people experience; they language, or geography can limit access to high quality information from science, increase exposure to misinformation; and increase the potential for harm Trust in General decline in trust People seek or encounter institutions in many institutions, information about science from including education, less reliable sources medicine, and the press; political divides in trust in science and media Features New Social media and other Massive changes to production, of the information internet-based large dissemination, and consumption information technologies platforms emerge in late of information about science, ecosystem and platforms 20th/early 21st century including entry of many new communicators who previously had limited/no access to large audiences Audience Different audiences Fewer very broadly shared fragmentation distributed across trusted sources of information different media, about science means different channels, outlets groups can seek out and/or be exposed to very different pieces of (mis) information about science Hybrid media Information ecosystem Science information travels consists of different quickly across media types/ channels and media platforms, sometimes losing or types shifting important context that produces misinformation continued
|
From page 72... ...
comprehension, as well as for positive effects problem solving, from its potential to identify decision making, and correct misinformation or creativity and make correct information from autonomy" (Stryker & science more easily accessible Kavlakoglu, 2024) Factors Quality and Decrease in number Decreases in locally shaping quantity of of dedicated science contextualized evidence the science science news journalists; areas of information production the country without environment local news coverage; decreased funding for science journalism Competing Increasingly competitive More points of entry for bad interests science information actors to manipulate, target, and public environment and amplify misinformation relations about science Open science Growth of preprints, Potential for negative effects movements availability of data from context collapse with and scientific intramural discourse professional and broader public discourse norms as well as for positive effects from increasing free access to scientific information SOURCE: Committee generated.
|
From page 73... ...
Conclusion 3-2: Trust in science has declined in recent years, yet remains relatively high compared to trust in other civic institutions. Although confidence in the scientific community varies significantly by partisan identity, patterns of trust in science across demographic groups also vary as a function of the specific topic, the science organization or scientists being considered, or respective histories and experiences.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.