How Does Science Misinformation Affect Americans from Underrepresented Communities?
New BU-led research suggests false information festers due to structural dynamics, including historic discrimination
Photo via iStock/MicrovOne
How Does Science Misinformation Affect Americans from Underrepresented Communities?
New BU-led research suggests false information festers due to structural dynamics, including historic discrimination
Anyone who spends time on social media knows that we’re awash in misinformation—particularly around science and health. But new Boston University–led research has found historically excluded and marginalized Americans may be more vulnerable to inaccurate notions about science due to “structural and institutional power dynamics.”
In a paper published in Science Communication, the researchers—five from the BU College of Communication and one from Baylor University—conducted two focus groups in 2021 with 19 Black and Latino social media users in Greater Boston. The participants weren’t selected on income, but rather as members of groups that have faced historical discrimination, says Michelle Amazeen, COM’s associate dean of research and the study’s lead investigator.
“They had to qualify as what we call ‘misinformation-receptive’ or ‘misinformation-vulnerable’ on the topic of climate change,” she says, using terms coined by coresearcher Arunima Krishna, a COM associate professor of mass communication, advertising, and public relations. The former term refers to people susceptible to misinformation either because they’ve accepted it before or hold extreme attitudes or high motivation about climate change. The latter refers to people displaying either extreme attitudes toward climate change or “high knowledge deficiency” about it, putting them at moderate risk of misinformation susceptibility.
In their paper, the researchers said their discussion with focus group participants revealed “relative disengagement from science-related news and information” and that power dynamics impeded “access to accurate information and indicate how missing voices must be included in the efforts at media and information literacy initiatives.” The other COM researchers were Yi Grace Ji, an assistant professor of mass communication, advertising, and public relations; Chris Chao Su, an assistant professor of emerging media studies; and James J. Cummings, an assistant professor of emerging media studies. The study received funding from the Rita Allen Foundation.
The Brink spoke with Amazeen, a COM associate professor of mass communication, about the study’s findings and if it revealed any new approaches to tackling misinformation.
Q&A
With Michelle Amazeen
The Brink: What is new about your study?
Amazeen: A handful of [previous] researchers talked with underrepresented communities. What’s novel about our study is that we were able to identify and talk with people who were susceptible to misinformation. We prescreened them just [about] climate, but we have reason to believe that people’s vulnerability to one type of science-related misinformation spreads to other topics.
The Brink: In the focus groups, what were the questions you asked?
Amazeen: We talked about media usage and, in one group in particular, nobody mentioned engaging with news; it wasn’t top of mind for them. When I asked them about it, a few of them said, “If I need to—if I’m taking a trip and I need to know the weather, or when the coronavirus happened.” They would tune into news about that. But it wasn’t part of their daily routine to engage with news.
Some of it was because the groups really didn’t see themselves reflected in the news—people who looked liked them in the news, the journalists. More often, the people who looked like them were being accused of being violent or predators or that sort of thing.
I specifically had to ask about science-related topics; that didn’t come up organically, either. Climate came up, COVID-19 came up—this was in the summer of 2021, so the vaccines were out. Also, health and wellness—that was the topic that really engaged a lot of them. I didn’t bring it up; they brought it up.
The Brink: Define the issues that they brought up.
Amazeen: What’s in our foods; being able to eat healthy and take care of ourselves; dealing with things like diabetes. They don’t know what to believe; there’s a lot of conflicting information. One brought up—and others chimed in—food additives, such as [preservative] BHT and [whitener] titanium dioxide. In Europe, these chemicals are banned, but the CDC and other agencies have said, in the quantities that they’re in, they don’t pose any harm. But there are other links that people are seeing on the internet, saying, “this is bad for you.”
One of the participants, while we were conducting the focus group, said, “I just Googled it. Is BHT bad for you? The first thing that pops up is, ‘There’s no evidence that BHT is harmful in the amounts used in packaged food.’ First thing. I didn’t click anything. I just did a basic Google search. But then the funny thing is, right after that, it says, ‘General Mills to remove antioxidant BHT from its cereals.’ So, if it’s harmless…”
I think there’s a lot of distrust about what they’re being told. There’s a history of marginalized groups being taken advantage of by our government.
The Brink: Are you talking about things like the Tuskegee study [which in 1932 began studying syphilis in Black men without their informed consent]?
Amazeen: Exactly, and they brought that up.
The Brink: How many actually fell for scientific misinformation?
Amazeen: Some of them did. There were a few who were not vaccinated [against COVID]. One of them said [the vaccine] didn’t go through clinical trials; it did. Somebody said that it causes autism; that’s been debunked, as well. Other people brought up how the government has come after physicians who don’t prescribe certain things or raise questions about procedures or vaccines—and even implied that the government has killed people who have brought up those questions. They brought up COVID being developed as a bioweapon, referring to the Yan reports [a disinformation campaign promoted by, among others, former President Trump adviser Steve Bannon].
The Brink: In this social media era, lots of people are susceptible to misinformation. What makes that problem more acute, or different, among marginalized folks?
Amazeen: We were in no way trying to imply that these communities are more susceptible [than anyone else]. I think the point is that misinformation and disinformation have been weaponized and targeted to these populations, to sow divides, especially as it relates to the election. That’s not science-related. But there is evidence that Russia tried to create confusion about the safety of [COVID] vaccines, and that very well could have been targeted to communities that tend to already be more distrustful of the medical community. They’re less likely to have primary care physicians, a network in the medical community that they can turn to.
We were in no way trying to imply that these communities are more susceptible [than anyone else]. I think the point is that misinformation and disinformation have been weaponized and targeted to these populations.
The Brink: What can be done about this?
This came up toward the end of our discussion. They wanted to hear from local leaders—whether it’s congresspeople, clergy members, school board members—to talk about science-related issues. But I think misinformation is going to continue to be rampant. Interventions are no match, they’re not a panacea for us being inundated by so much misinformation. And it’s not just on social media. There’s plenty of it on the internet, on cable or radio.
One ray of hope we talked about was the public education system making media literacy part of the curriculum. Hand in hand, public education, the public library system, and local communities can work synergistically to educate people about what’s happening. It’s hard to keep up with how quickly technology is evolving, though. ChatGPT wasn’t a thing when I did these focus groups. Deep-fake videos used to require expensive equipment and a good deal of time. Today, you can get something downloaded almost instantaneously and make something that looks realistic. We need to be using any and all the tools that we have, and media literacy education seems to be one of the sharpest, most effective tools we have. I’m hopeful that a new, comparative study I’m involved in will bear this out.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.