One-off fake news rarely changes attitudes or actions, even on food or climate issues.
With social media booming and people increasingly searching online for everything and the information we encounter can leaves a lasting impression, but only if it’s true. The problem arises with so-called misinformation, popularly known as “fake news,” which consists of fabricated or debunked stories designed to mislead.
In a new article published in Scientific Reports, the standard pattern is disrupted by the view that just one exposure to fake news can change our behavior. Scientists researched whether single instances of exposure to misinformation; whether it be food contamination scares or politically charged stories- do have an effect on the actions people take. Although it is commonly believed that misinformation directly influences behavior, there has been little experimental evidence to test this concept. This research in particular investigated the impact of a single exposure on political and daily behavior as three studies (1✔ ✔Trusted Source
Evaluating real-world effects of one-off fake news exposure
Go to source
).
Testing Misinformation in Real Life
Researchers ran three experiments:
Does Fake News About Food Change What We Think or Eat?
Study 1: With about 2,397 online participants, who were shown fake stories about contaminated almond nuts. Participants in the misinformation group saw one fabricated story (about spider egg contamination), while control participants saw only true stories. A subset later did a “taste test” to see if misinformation affected consumption.
Participants rated how much they liked almonds and cashews before and after seeing the news, and their actual consumption of these nuts was measured in the lab. They were also asked if they remembered seeing the story before (false memory).
Very few participants (3.8%) falsely remembered seeing the fake story before, and these memories did not affect behaviour. A single fake news story about food contamination did not change people’s attitudes or eating behaviour. Even seeing a dramatic story about spider eggs in nuts wasn’t enough to make participants eat less or dislike the nuts more.
Testing Different Fake Nut Contamination Stories
Study 2: Replicated Study 1 with different contamination stories with 417 participants to confirm results weren’t content-specific. After Study 1 suggested that one fake news story didn’t change people’s attitudes toward nuts, researchers wanted to make sure this wasn’t just because the “spider eggs” story was unconvincing. This time the experimental group were given four fake stories claiming that almonds or cashews were contaminated with
- Spider eggs (as in study 1)
- Fungus
- E. Coli bacteria
- Rodent urine
The control group on the other hand was given true news stories unrelated to nuts. The participants were asked to rate how much they liked almonds and cashews before and after seeing the news.
Across all four fake stories, participants’ opinions of the nuts did not change, but the rodent urine story had a small impact. But still no meaningful change in behaviour or attitudes was observed. Even when varying the fake story, a single exposure to misinformation about food contamination didn’t sway people’s attitudes.
Can Fake News Affect Climate Change Actions?
Study 3: In studies 1 and 2, a single piece of fake news regarding nuts did not cause much influence on the attitudes or behaviour of people. Study 3 also experimented with the same but with politically charged fake news on climate change, which could have more impact, and 413 participants were randomly divided into pro-climate, anti-climate, and control groups. Measures were taken on behavioural intentions, actual online behaviours, and false memories.
Findings demonstrated that the effect of fake news was weak: there were few changes to intentions, with a slight impact on climate-conscious shopping only, and the actual behaviour was only influenced in terms of petition signing, with anti-climactic news influencing responses downwards. False memories were scarce and irrelevant. The consistency between strong preexisting beliefs in climate change and intentions and behaviour indicated that misinformation should have one-off effects, unless those are accompanied by repetition and low stakes, as well as with the alignment of beliefs. Only 9% believed!
One-Off Fake News Isn’t That Powerful!
This study shows that isolated misinformation usually has minimal effects on what people do, especially for everyday habits like eating. Only specific political actions may be modestly influenced. The research suggests that the real risk comes from sustained or repeated exposure, not a single story!
References:
- Evaluating real-world effects of one-off fake news exposure – (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12485189/)
Source-Scientific Reports