When someone says something false, we usually turn to the facts: the credible, educational material in an attempt to sway them elsewhere. Correcting misconceptions about COVID-19, however, seems to require more than just posters saying, “wear a mask” because it’s the “right thing to do.”
According to a new study in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association, the effectiveness of COVID-19 educational material is largely influenced by a person’s prevailing moral values.
Gregory Trevors and Melissa Duffy, both of the University of South Carolina, describe the misinformation of COVID-19 risks, prevention, and treatments as an infodemic with the potential to cause serious harm.
Merriam-Webster defines “infodemic” as the “rapid and far-reaching spread of both accurate and inaccurate information about something, such as a disease.” Refutation texts, for example, which aim to identify an incorrect belief, refute it, and present several claims that reinforce the “correct” belief.
Trevors and Duffy propose that the current infodemic crisis may originate from differences in moral priorities. The study sorts these moral priorities into three groups: individualizing, binding, or libertarianism.
Individualizing focuses on the well-being and justice of individuals; binding focuses on protecting group cohesion and social order; and libertarianism focuses on protecting the free use of one’s liberty. Politically-speaking, think liberal, conservative, and libertarianism, respectively.
Trevors and Duffy found that how well a message appeals to our moral code shapes how likely we are to correct our misconceptions towards accepting it. Trevors and Duffy tested these relations between morality, learning, emotions, and beliefs in communities strongly opposed to social distancing measures.
The study recruited 518 U.S. adults from 12 states known to favour an immediate return to normal economic activity and travel behaviours. Participants were asked to read a set of refutations against common COVID-19 misconceptions, such as, “The seasonal flu is just as bad if not worse than the new coronavirus.”
Immediately after reading, participants reported their emotional responses to the refutations: Did it conflict with their personal views? Did it make them feel anxious, hopeful, doubtful?
Trevors and Duffy found that people with strong moral concerns for individual well-being were more likely to correct their COVID-19 misconceptions when corrected. Others who valued either group cohesion or individual freedoms, however, were more likely to reject corrective information.
For example, measures such as school closures, social distancing, mask wearing, etc., may be viewed as undermining social ties or personal autonomy; values held by those with binding and libertarianism moralities, respectively. These measures instead seem to favour the collective well-being, a value held more prominently by those with an individualizing morality.
However, Trevors and Duffy emphasize that facts surrounding COVID-19 should not be undermined by these moral differences. But if two out of the three proposed moral groups seem to reject corrective information, how should we move forward?
Trevors and Duffy suggest that correcting COVID-19 misconceptions should be adapted to connect with the morality of the learner. For example, suppose you are trying to convince your friend to wear their mask. If they hold individualizing values, you might say that wearing a mask is fair and reduces suffering. For binding values, you can appeal to obeying authority or showing patriotism. For libertarian thinkers, you can appeal to masks as a form of self-protection.
Trevors and Duffy show that correcting misconceptions, both within ourselves and others, is further challenged by their integration with strong personal values. Misconceptions do not simply reflect a lack of information; you can tell your libertarian friend that wearing a mask is “the right thing to do” all you want, while failing to appeal to their values.
This skill of knowing how to effectively correct misconceptions on controversial topics is crucial, as the weight of staying safe during the pandemic should not be ignored amidst our moral differences.
According to a new study in Educational Researcher, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association, the effectiveness of COVID-19 educational material is largely influenced by a person’s prevailing moral values.
Gregory Trevors and Melissa Duffy, both of the University of South Carolina, describe the misinformation of COVID-19 risks, prevention, and treatments as an infodemic with the potential to cause serious harm.
Merriam-Webster defines “infodemic” as the “rapid and far-reaching spread of both accurate and inaccurate information about something, such as a disease.” Refutation texts, for example, which aim to identify an incorrect belief, refute it, and present several claims that reinforce the “correct” belief.
Trevors and Duffy propose that the current infodemic crisis may originate from differences in moral priorities. The study sorts these moral priorities into three groups: individualizing, binding, or libertarianism.
Individualizing focuses on the well-being and justice of individuals; binding focuses on protecting group cohesion and social order; and libertarianism focuses on protecting the free use of one’s liberty. Politically-speaking, think liberal, conservative, and libertarianism, respectively.
Trevors and Duffy found that how well a message appeals to our moral code shapes how likely we are to correct our misconceptions towards accepting it. Trevors and Duffy tested these relations between morality, learning, emotions, and beliefs in communities strongly opposed to social distancing measures.
The study recruited 518 U.S. adults from 12 states known to favour an immediate return to normal economic activity and travel behaviours. Participants were asked to read a set of refutations against common COVID-19 misconceptions, such as, “The seasonal flu is just as bad if not worse than the new coronavirus.”
Immediately after reading, participants reported their emotional responses to the refutations: Did it conflict with their personal views? Did it make them feel anxious, hopeful, doubtful?
Trevors and Duffy found that people with strong moral concerns for individual well-being were more likely to correct their COVID-19 misconceptions when corrected. Others who valued either group cohesion or individual freedoms, however, were more likely to reject corrective information.
For example, measures such as school closures, social distancing, mask wearing, etc., may be viewed as undermining social ties or personal autonomy; values held by those with binding and libertarianism moralities, respectively. These measures instead seem to favour the collective well-being, a value held more prominently by those with an individualizing morality.
However, Trevors and Duffy emphasize that facts surrounding COVID-19 should not be undermined by these moral differences. But if two out of the three proposed moral groups seem to reject corrective information, how should we move forward?
Trevors and Duffy suggest that correcting COVID-19 misconceptions should be adapted to connect with the morality of the learner. For example, suppose you are trying to convince your friend to wear their mask. If they hold individualizing values, you might say that wearing a mask is fair and reduces suffering. For binding values, you can appeal to obeying authority or showing patriotism. For libertarian thinkers, you can appeal to masks as a form of self-protection.
Trevors and Duffy show that correcting misconceptions, both within ourselves and others, is further challenged by their integration with strong personal values. Misconceptions do not simply reflect a lack of information; you can tell your libertarian friend that wearing a mask is “the right thing to do” all you want, while failing to appeal to their values.
This skill of knowing how to effectively correct misconceptions on controversial topics is crucial, as the weight of staying safe during the pandemic should not be ignored amidst our moral differences.
