Part 5 in the series by Wollongong psychologist Jo Lunn

Update on Katia and Henry

Katia barely recognises who she was before her divorce two years ago. Everything in her life has changed, including most of her social and even close family relationships. She couldn’t have predicted who ended up being there and being supportive of her during this very difficult time and who wasn’t when she needed them the most. Pre-divorce, her life was always looking after everyone else and keeping them happy, often feeling busy and stressed. The altercation with Henry, her neighbour, over a local community issue has been very upsetting but it was also a turning point for her.  She was tired of always letting others tell her what to believe, think and do and putting their needs or her need to be liked and accepted above what she really needed or wanted.  She started honestly speaking up when she felt it was important, even though doing so was hard and it took practise to get it right.  She joined Toastmasters. Speaking up led to a promotion at work, her boss appreciating her expressing her knowledge and insights.  Some relationships not only managed but improved with her speaking up. Others disappointingly didn’t and some sadly fell away altogether. She realised that losing what she had believed were close relationships made space and time for her to invest in new relationships with different groups of people. Overall, looking back Katia is grateful for the hard times she went through, all the changes led her to a place in her life. Her current relationships feel far more balanced – involving give and take, she can be honest and really be herself. She has never felt this calm, confident, content and connected to others.  

Henry's golf days with Daniel became regular sessions, three times a week. He met Allan in the golf club after a game. Allan convinced Henry to do a series of talks at U3A on permaculture. Afterwards he met Aisha, who convinced him to join a community garden working with refugees. Initially, he was reluctant, being unsure of who he would meet but he finally agreed to go. Now he is at the garden most days when he isn’t playing golf. He has become a firm favourite of the garden community, attending many social events and even spending last Christmas with Maria and her family. He mentioned the community garden to his online friend Kim. He was surprised and taken aback by Kim’s negative reaction to his involvement, and he hasn’t recontacted them since. He is too busy anyway with golf, his talks and his work and friends at the community garden.

The last four articles have discussed how our brain design is targeted toward survival.  We have looked at the ‘don’t eat me’ brain design, explored how being a member of a tribe means we need to have agreement or conform with those around us and delved into Groupthink – a culture where there is no questioning at all of the group. Organisations, cults, political groups, movements, influencers, news outlets etc can hijack our brain design and tear communities apart simply to make money and gain power. The last article outlined important ways to protect ourselves from Groupthink.  

The aim of this article is to give useful tips to help critically analyse information we come across so we can avoid getting tangled up in targeted disinformation and/or groupthink and make up our own minds on important issues. 

When dealing with complicated topics it is often helpful to start with definitions. Information can be roughly broken down into being based on either facts or opinions. A fact is something that can be proven or has direct evidence to support the statement. There are a lot of ways to judge the strength of the evidence that supports a fact. An example of a fact is a statement such as, blue is one of three primary colours. An opinion is a personal belief or view about something for which there is no right or wrong answer; for example, blue is the best colour.  

Incorrect information can also be broken into two categories, misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is when something is presented as being factual, but it is not, for example, blue has been scientifically proven to be the best colour. Misinformation thrives when people are motivated by emotion to share it with the ‘don’t eat me’ brain.  Our motivation to share increases when we feel angry or scared. This misinformation we pass onto others, often via social media. Sometimes, it is passed on because we believe it to be true and feel strongly about it. Other times we can share misinformation with others out of habit and without thinking about it too much. Either way the intent is not to deliberately give people the incorrect information.  

Disinformation is different. People or organisations spreading disinformation, do so deliberately. Knowingly spreading lies or half-truths, presented as facts, to target our ‘don’t eat me’ brains. Why? Money and power.  If they are really practised at spreading disinformation, they will make sure the disinformation is picked up and repeated by multiple sources.  With our need to conform, we are more likely to believe something if we think that others believe it too or if we have heard it on multiple occasions from different sources.  We may even distrust our own eyes and knowledge to conform with an incorrect group opinion.  If you don’t believe me, check it out. 

Disinformation can not only be destructive to relationships and communities, but it can also be outright physically dangerous. A well-documented case of targeted disinformation was conducted by tobacco companies.  Research, conducted by the companies themselves, demonstrated their product was dangerous as early as the 1930s. By the 1950s, they knew their product was causing lung cancer and killing people. The CEOs of the big cigarette companies met in 1953 and together coordinated a targeted disinformation campaign to create confusion about the health impacts of cigarettes.  Why? To keep selling them and making massive profits. They were so successful in spreading disinformation, it wasn’t until mid 90s, 50 years after they first knew it, that the cigarette manufacturers admitted that smoking damaged people’s health. The only reason for the admission: they were taken to court and settled with financial damages.   

How to reduce Misinformation and Disinformation – recognise CRAAP when you see it

How do we find out the facts or the ‘truth’ about something important to us among all the noise?  

The CRAAP test helps us judge the quality of information we see or hear. 

C IS FOR CURRENCY 

How current is the information you are looking at – when was it printed, published, uploaded?  

Is there newer, more accurate information available? This is very important when we are searching for information online. How old is the video, story, article? Even if it was uploaded yesterday – how old is the information the story is using? For example, it might be a new post by a blogger but the reports they are using as facts were published 15 years ago.  

 R IS FOR RELEVANCE 

Am I getting all the relevant information about a topic?  Is the information I am looking at relevant to what I am interested in? 

Internet search engines, Facebook and TikTok change what we see depending upon what we look at and the amount of time we spend looking at it. They want to know what we are interested in so they can keep us online and looking at their advertisers’ products, so they can make money. If we look at something for a time, similar articles, videos etc will be sent to our feeds.   

This is fine if we like cat videos, but when we are trying to understand complicated topics, we are often getting only one side of the story.  Universities have great free online resources to help you find relevant information.   

A IS FOR AUTHORITY 

What are the information presenters’ qualifications?, e.g. have they studied the topic for 15 years or did they just do a three-hour google search?   

Are they actually an expert in the area they are commenting on – you wouldn’t get a builder to take out your appendix, just like you wouldn’t get your surgeon to build your home?  

Is their expertise up to date with the latest findings/research? Experience is invaluable but have they stepped out of the field for an extended  period?

Is there consensus between experts on the topic you are looking at? There is always disagreement and diversity of opinion, especially in science and we want that, as exploring multiple perspectives is a human superpower.  At the same time, if you have one expert who says something is red and 100 saying it is blue, consensus really needs to weigh into your evaluation of the information.

Is the presenter being paid for the information? 

What is their motive for sharing the information?  If money, power or prestige are involved, be cautious! 

A IS FOR ACCURACY 

So how do you judge the accuracy of the information?   

Did the presenter use broad sweeping statements like “everybody knows” (who is everybody?), “it makes sense” (to who?), “they don’t want you to know about this” (who is they?), “many scientists are now saying” (which scientists – where are they saying this and what exactly are they saying – for example did the presenter take one line of 600-page report and use it out context?). 

If what you’re reading has a reference to other sources of information, for example, if it uses data, research, a report, a graph or an organisational endorsement, look up that source of information and make up your own mind.  

References can be unintentionally or intentionally misquoted or in some cases might not even exist at all!  

Consider joining your local library, your librarian can help you look up information from a wide range of sources. Your librarian can also help you access information that is used to judge the accuracy of information, explaining terms like peer-reviewed articles, systematic reviews, for example. There are also fact checking links – there are some examples below to fact check topics of interest.

P IS FOR PURPOSE 

There are many ways to tell a story or give information, so how is the information presented and why is it being presented in the way it is?  

Does the presenter make it clear what they want you to do with the information and any preferences they have about It? 

Media sources, whether they are TV current affair shows, social media or YouTube ‘influencers’, know that the angrier you are about what you are seeing, the more you watch. So, is information being explained to inform you or is it told in a way that pretends to inform you but is really designed to outrage you. This is called ‘rage-bait’. You can tell if the motive is to outrage you, as the presenter might use excessive sarcasm, a sense of superiority or derogatory language to describe large groups of ominous others who  disagree and are a threat. The aim – the ‘us and them’ story.  If this is happening, chances are the facts are secondary to the money being made by selling our time to advertisers or a grab for power which is the underlying goal. 

So, remember to check the information you are basing your decision on by checking the currency, relevance, author, accuracy, and purpose or simply be mindful and look out for CRAAP. 

Using the CRAAP method helps you spot crap when you come across it before you step in it.  

If this feels like way too much, just don’t mindlessly share controversial or divisive information, especially ‘rage-bait’.

Be mindful about what you put out in the world, even if you are forwarding something to show others how wrong it is, you are still making the media outlet money and giving the person pushing the disinformation, if not money then notoriety, by giving them a louder voice. Think about the messages you want to receive and send out to people you care about and the community and the impact of those messages.

Look after and understand that your and everyone else’s ‘don’t eat me’ brain design will always automatically pay greater attention to things that drive fear and worry, even if there is actually no or little threat.  We need to actively work against that tendency to get a balanced view of the world.  Find out what is working in the world and share that information instead.

In summary, the CRAAP test stands for:

Currency: Is the information up-to-date?
Relevance: Is it relevant to what you want to know ?
Authority: Is the source credible?
Accuracy: Is the information reliable and supported by evidence?
Purpose: Why is the information being presented?

By doing this, we can reduce the spread of misinformation and strengthen connection and discussion of the facts in our communities, using diversity of thought to find solutions and our superpower of being able to work together and make a difference.

Read the 'Don't Eat Me' Brain series

Part 1: Inside the ‘don’t eat me’ brain: Why we’re hardwired for connection

Part 2: Groupthink: The dark side of our need to connect

Part 3: Groupthink: What is it and how can I avoid it?

Part 4: Taking our brains back: How to avoid traps targeting profit and power for others

Part 5: Does it pass the CRAAP Test: A guide to spotting misinformation

Resources 

Watch Evaluating Sources, a video of the CRAAP tests 

Political fact checking sites: Australian National University's Fact-checking the News and University of California's Real News/Fake News: Fact Checkers

Comparing sources: The University of Queensland's What is a peer reviewed article? 

Having hard conversations: Resources on how to talk to people with opposite views; The Persuaders: At the Front Lines of the Fight for Hearts, Minds, and Democracy book by Anand Giridharadas 

Podcasts: Anand Giirdharadas: How to persuade people in a polarised world and Unlocking Us with Brené Brown

Find solutions-focused journalism at good new sites such as Squirrel News, Positive News or Greater Good Magazine

References

• Brandt AM. Inventing conflicts of interest: a history of tobacco industry tactics. Am J Public Health, January 2012
• Using psychology to understand and fight health misinformation, American Psychological Association
• Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit against Fox News, Politifact 2023
• Compare the election-fraud claims Fox News aired with what its stars knew, NPR 2023
• What Fox News hosts allegedly said privately versus on-air about false election fraud claims, ABC News 2023
• How Many Died as a Result of Capitol Riot? FactCheck.org 2021
• Social isolation and loneliness, World Health Organisation
• Social isolation and loneliness, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
• Groupthink, Psychology Today
• Conformity, Psychology Today