Why truth is no match for misinformation: Q&A with Kristina Lerman

A recent Gallup poll showed public trust in the electoral process — a cornerstone of American democracy — is eroding as the rampant spread of misinformation and organized disinformation campaigns breed dangerous skepticism among voters. Now, with early voting underway and Election Day around the corner, the stakes are higher than ever.

USC News spoke with Kristina Lerman, a senior principal scientist at USC’s Information Sciences Institute and research professor at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, for insights into why misinformation spreads so easily online and why fighting it with traditional fact-checking may miss the mark.

How does misinformation tap into human psychology, especially emotions like fear and outrage, and why do these emotional triggers make it harder to combat misinformation through traditional methods like fact-checking?

Lerman: Conventional wisdom holds that misinformation is a primary culprit in the divisive nature of social media. The common explanation is that false or misleading content spreads rapidly through digital networks, distorting public understanding and fueling societal rifts. This view has led to widespread calls for fact-checking initiatives and content moderation policies aimed at stemming the tide of inaccurate information.

However, this perspective misses the mark. Truth is often beside the point, and our current approaches to combating it may be fundamentally misaligned with its true nature and impact.

So, is truth really no match for misinformation?

Lerman: The power of misinformation lies not in its factual content, but in the emotional response it elicits. Content that provokes outrage, anger or a sense of injustice can spread rapidly and influence beliefs, regardless of its veracity. Misinformation that triggers fear is one of the most powerful rhetorical devices and has been used in propaganda for centuries.

Weeks after it first surfaced, the tale of immigrants eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio, refuses to die. Despite numerous fact checks, rebuttalsand heightened public scrutiny, the now-debunked story continues to circulate. Worse still, the unwanted attention has led to bomb threats and a climate of fear and intimidation in the local community.

The story, born and nurtured online, embodies the now-familiar concerns about social media’s role in unraveling the fabric of society. As we scroll through our feeds and navigate digital landscapes, we find an increasingly fractured world marked by growing divides, widespread mistrust and extreme polarization.

What strategies can social platforms adopt to address the emotional and identity-based drivers behind misinformation?

Lerman: Rather than focusing solely on fact-checking, we should consider “vibe-checking” — explaining to the reader who benefits from the spread of this information and who is potentially harmed by it, and what emotional needs it fulfills for its audience.

Acknowledging that the true power of misinformation lies not in its factual inaccuracy, but in its emotional resonance and social function may help dilute its power to divide.

You’ve also said our concept of so-called echo chambers needs an update. What do you mean?

Lerman: Echo chambers in social media have long been cited as a potent driver of polarization. Conventional wisdom suggests that these digital enclaves, where users are exposed primarily to ideas and opinions that align with their own, lead to an inevitable hardening of beliefs and a growing intolerance for opposing viewpoints.

TRUST IN VOTING: HOW MISINFORMATION THREATENS DEMOCRACY

With misinformation on the rise and American voters increasingly losing faith in elections, USC experts explore strategies to restore confidence in democracy.

The true power of echo chambers lies not in their ability to isolate people from diverse viewpoints, but in their role in creating shared emotional experiences and collective identities. The echo chambers allow members to talk to each other relatively unchallenged. This emotional dynamic, called othering, allows for marginalizing, excluding or discriminating against the out-group based on arbitrary or perceived differences, such as race, religion or ethnicity.

Over time, this dynamic fosters the development of in-group language — a specialized jargon of inside jokes that become a hallmark of belonging. The combination of shared language and shared emotional experiences cultivates a robust collective identity, transforming the echo chamber from a mere information bubble into a powerful crucible of social cohesion.