Page - 190 - in VULNERABLE - The Law, Policy and Ethics of COVID-19

VULNERABLE190 scientific knowledge and not motivated reasoning.32 So while a back- fire effect may occur in some circumstances—this is an area where more research would be helpful—it certainly isn’t such a robust and measurable phenomenon that it should stop us from mounting efforts to counter misinformation on social media. The second and perhaps more challenging critique of correct- ing and debunking is that it may inadvertently help to spread mis- information.33 Specifically, there might an “illusory truth” effect.34 Studies have consistently found that merely exposing people to an idea increases the believability of that idea.35 In many ways this is how “fake news” works.36 A study by Gordon Pennycook et al, for 32. Jonathon McPhetres & Gordon Pennycook, “Science Beliefs, Political Ideology, And Cognitive Sophistication” (2020) at abstract, online: OSF Preprints <https:// osf.io/ad9v7/>: “We also found little evidence of motivated reasoning; reason- ing ability was instead broadly associated with pro-science beliefs. Finally, one’s level of basic science knowledge was the most consistent predictor of people’s beliefs about science. Results suggest educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking rather than the ideolo- gies that purportedly divide people.” 33. This is also often called the backfire effect, though it is a different phenome- non than that described by Nyhan & Reifler in “When Corrections Fail,” who coined the phrase. As such, I usually treat them as distinct and refer to this as the “spreading” concern. 34. Melissa Healy, “Misinformation About the Coronavirus Abounds, but Correcting It Can Backfire”, Los  Angeles  Times (8 February 2020), online: <https:// www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-02-08/coronavirus-outbreak-false-infor- mation-psychology>: “Sometimes the effort to correct misinformation involves repeating the lie. That repetition seems to establish it in our memories more firmly than the truth.” 35. See Jonas De keersmaecker, David Dunning & Gordon Pennycook, “Investigat- ing the Robustness of the Illusory Truth Effect Across Individual Differences in Cognitive Ability, Need for Cognitive Closure, and Cognitive Style” (2020) 46:2 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 204. Indeed, this effect can still have an impact even if the information runs counter to an existing knowledge base. See, for example, Lisa K Fazio et al, “Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth” (2015) 144 J Experimental Psychology 993 at 993: “Contrary to prior suppositions, illusory truth effects occurred even when participants knew better.” 36. See, for example, Danielle C Polage, “Making Up History: False Memories of Fake News Stories” (2012) 8:2 Europe’s J Psychology 245; Christopher Paul & Miriam Matthews, “The Russian ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model: Why It Might Work and Options to Counter It” (2016), online: RAND <https:// www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html>. I have argued that this is also one reason that celebrities can have such a large impact on the spread of misinfor- mation. See, for example, Timothy Caulfield, “Celebrities like Gwyneth Paltrow Made the 2010s the Decade of Health and Wellness Misinformation”, NBC News (27 December 2019), online: <https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/