Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored Information For Practice

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 5, 2025, 4:40 PM

why misinformation must not be ignored information for practice

American Psychologist, Vol 80(6), Sep 2025, 867-878; doi:10.1037/amp0001448 Recent academic debate has seen the emergence of the claim that misinformation is not a significant societal problem. We argue that the arguments used to support this minimizing position are flawed, particularly if interpreted (e.g., by policymakers or the public) as suggesting that misinformation can be safely ignored. Here, we rebut the two main claims, namely that misinformation is not of substantive concern (a) due to its low incidence and (b) because it has no causal influence on notable political or behavioral... Through a critical review of the current literature, we demonstrate that (a) the prevalence of misinformation is nonnegligible if reasonably inclusive definitions are applied and that (b) misinformation has causal impacts on important beliefs... Both scholars and policymakers should therefore continue to take misinformation seriously.

(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) Magda Osman, University of Cambridge, Centre for Science and Policy Email: m.osman@jbs.cam.ac.uk This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed... In the last decade there has been a proliferation of research on misinformation. One important aspect of this work that receives less attention than it should is exactly why misinformation is a problem. To adequately address this question, we must first look to its speculated causes and effects.

We examined different disciplines (computer science, economics, history, information science, journalism, law, media, politics, philosophy, psychology, sociology) that investigate misinformation. The consensus view points to advancements in information technology (e.g., the Internet, social media) as a main cause of the proliferation and increasing impact of misinformation, with a variety of illustrations of the effects. We critically analyzed both issues. As to the effects, misbehaviors are not yet reliably demonstrated empirically to be the outcome of misinformation; correlation as causation may have a hand in that perception. As to the cause, advancements in information technologies enable, as well as reveal, multitudes of interactions that represent significant deviations from ground truths through people’s new way of knowing (intersubjectivity). This, we argue, is illusionary when understood in light of historical epistemology.

Both doubts we raise are used to consider the cost to established norms of liberal democracy that come from efforts to target the problem of misinformation. Keywords: misinformation and disinformation, intersubjectivity, correlation versus causation, free speech The aim of this review is to answer the question, (Why) is misinformation a problem? We begin the main review with a discussion of definitions of “misinformation” because this, in part motivated our pursuit to answer this question. Incorporating evidence from many disciplines helps us to examine the speculated effects and causes of misinformation, which give some indication of why it might be a problem. Answers in the literature reveal that advancements in information technology are the commonly suspected primary cause of misinformation.

However, the reviewed literature shows considerable divergence regarding the assumed outcomes of misinformation. This may not be surprising given the breadth of disciplines involved; researchers in different fields observe effects from different perspectives. The fact that so many effects of misinformation are reported is not a concern as long as the direct causal link between misinformation and the aberrant behaviors it generates is clear. We emphasize that the evidence provided by studies investigating this relationship is weak. This exposes two issues: one that is empirical, as to the effects of misinformation, and one that is conceptual, as to the cause of the problem of misinformation. We argue that the latter issue has been oversimplified.

Uniting the two issues, we propose that the alarm regarding the speculated relationship between misinformation and aberrant societal behaviors appears to be rooted in the increased opportunities through advancements in information technology for people... Ecker, Ullrich; Tay, Li Qian; Roozenbeek, Jon; van der Linden, Sander; Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Lewandowsky, Stephan Fake News and Politicization, Mis- and Disinformation, Mis- and Disinformation Sign-up to our newsletter to be informed about latest developments: our Unpacking Current Developments in the Information Space Insight Series, our newsletter, news from our network, events and publications. 2025 - Observatory on Information & Democracy This map represents a statistical summary of the thematic content of the report.

The network graph represents relations between the words in the report, placing them closer to each other the more they are related. The bigger the node, the more present the word is, signalling its role in defining what the report or chapter is about. The colors represent words that are closely related to each other and can be interpreted as a topic. Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Li Qian Tay, Jon Roozenbeek, Sander van der Linden, John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review T1 - Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored N2 - Recent academic debate has seen the emergence of the claim that misinformation is not a significant societal problem. We argue that the arguments used to support this minimizing position are flawed, particularly if interpreted (e.g., by policymakers or the public) as suggesting that misinformation can be safely ignored. Here, we rebut the two main claims, namely that misinformation is not of substantive concern (a) due to its low incidence and (b) because it has no causal influence on notable political or behavioral...

Through a critical review of the current literature, we demonstrate that (a) the prevalence of misinformation is nonnegligible if reasonably inclusive definitions are applied and that (b) misinformation has causal impacts on important beliefs... Both scholars and policymakers should therefore continue to take misinformation seriously. Public Significance Statement This article refutes claims that misinformation is an insignificant issue. Through a critical literature review, we demonstrate that misinformation represents a nontrivial part of the information environment and can causally and adversely influence people's beliefs, decisions, and behaviors. We clarify through our discussion why misinformation continues to be a significant problem that should not be ignored by communicators and policymakers. Posted November 23, 2025 | Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

How many Trump administration executive orders, policy announcements, or social media blasts have you heard about this week? Can you even begin to name them all? U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration have been said to engage in a strategy called “flooding the zone”—releasing a great deal of information with the goal of distracting the media and the public. (Almost certainly, they are not the only politicians to do this. For example, Boris Johnson’s London mayoral campaigns were said to use the “dead cat strategy,” shocking the public with an announcement to distract them from news they preferred they not see.)

The U.S. political application of this term, which was borrowed from the name of a tactic used in American football, can be traced to former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, who said, “All we have to do... They'll bite on one, and we'll get all of our stuff done, bang, bang, bang.” Flooding the zone might work as a political strategy, but it takes a psychological toll on media consumers. For example, polls show that 65% of U.S. adults have felt the need to reduce their media consumption because of information overload and ensuing feelings of fatigue. Moreover, experimental research has found that a habit of closely following political news is a chronic stressor, often leading to negative emotions (Ford et al., 2023).

But information overload doesn’t just undermine our psychological well-being; it can also undermine democracy. In a recent article, “Critical ignoring when information abundance is detrimental to democracy,” psychology researchers Stephan Lewandowsky and Ralph Hertwig (2025) outlined why information overload harms democracy and provided a strategy on how we... First, the authors share findings that information abundance causes misinformation because our ability to differentiate truth from falsehood decreases when we are overwhelmed and in a hurry. In fact, the research shows that overwhelmed people are more likely to share “things that are partially or completely untrue.” Why? Essentially, we’re more likely to share the splashy findings which are, in turn, more likely to be misinformation. As the researchers explain, this information abundance harms democracy via several mechanisms, ranging from “triggering misinformation cascades to generating coping strategies that result in reduced political accountability.”

Ullrich K H Ecker*, Li Qian Tay, Jon Roozenbeek, Sander Van Der Linden, John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review T1 - Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s)

Why Misinformation Must Not Be Ignored Information For Practice

People Also Search

American Psychologist, Vol 80(6), Sep 2025, 867-878; Doi:10.1037/amp0001448 Recent Academic

(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, All Rights Reserved) Magda

We Examined Different Disciplines (computer Science, Economics, History, Information Science,

Both Doubts We Raise Are Used To Consider The Cost

However, The Reviewed Literature Shows Considerable Divergence Regarding The Assumed