» Articles » PMID: 30642953

Science Audiences, Misinformation, and Fake News

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Jan 16
PMID 30642953
Citations 120
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Concerns about public misinformation in the United States-ranging from politics to science-are growing. Here, we provide an overview of how and why citizens become (and sometimes remain) misinformed about science. Our discussion focuses specifically on misinformation among individual citizens. However, it is impossible to understand individual information processing and acceptance without taking into account social networks, information ecologies, and other macro-level variables that provide important social context. Specifically, we show how being misinformed is a function of a person's ability and motivation to spot falsehoods, but also of other group-level and societal factors that increase the chances of citizens to be exposed to correct(ive) information. We conclude by discussing a number of research areas-some of which echo themes of the 2017 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's report-that will be particularly important for our future understanding of misinformation, specifically a systems approach to the problem of misinformation, the need for more systematic analyses of science communication in new media environments, and a (re)focusing on traditionally underserved audiences.

Citing Articles

Fake news, real needs: A qualitative study on Sino-Japanese theurgy fighting.

Gao Q, Fu Q Heliyon. 2025; 11(3):e42255.

PMID: 39916854 PMC: 11795794. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42255.


Evidence Communication Rules for Policy (ECR-P) critical appraisal tool.

Danopoulos E, Aston J, Shah A, Schneider C Syst Rev. 2025; 14(1):10.

PMID: 39806401 PMC: 11727712. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-025-02757-8.


The Social Contract at Risk: COVID-19 Misinformation in South Africa.

Kruger W, Henrico I, Smit H Jamba. 2024; 16(1):1630.

PMID: 39507561 PMC: 11538332. DOI: 10.4102/jamba.v16i1.1630.


Words Matter: Reflective Science Communication and Tradeoffs in Environmental Health Research.

Elliott K, Patisaul H, Sargis R, Vandenberg L Environ Health Perspect. 2024; 132(10):105001.

PMID: 39475729 PMC: 11524408. DOI: 10.1289/EHP14527.


Examination of public perceptions of microbes and microbiomes in the United States reveals insights for science communication.

Kokkinias K, Pruneski K, Wrighton K, Kelp N PLoS One. 2024; 19(10):e0312427.

PMID: 39432547 PMC: 11493282. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312427.


References
1.
Scheufele D . Communicating science in social settings. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14040-7. PMC: 3752169. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1213275110. View

2.
Lewandowsky S, Ecker U, Seifert C, Schwarz N, Cook J . Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 13(3):106-31. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018. View

3.
Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S . The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2018; 359(6380):1146-1151. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap9559. View

4.
Brossard D . New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110 Suppl 3:14096-101. PMC: 3752175. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212744110. View

5.
Drummond C, Fischhoff B . Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017; 114(36):9587-9592. PMC: 5594657. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1704882114. View