Talking with people who fall for misinformation

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/03/2025 (367 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Canadians head to the polls on April 28. Like other recent general elections, both in Canada and around the world, this federal election campaign is sure to be characterized by polarized misinformation.

We all have someone in our families or social circles who has political opinions grounded in false or misleading information.

Whether the source of that information is Russian bots on social media, high-profile podcasters or Fox News, it’s easy to dread election-time conversations as misinformation strains our most important relationships.

But perhaps we can approach these conversations as an opportunity to push back against growing polarization in our communities.

My research shows that polarization and misinformation often go hand in hand, and when they do, the information being spread is strongly resistant to being corrected by way of evidence.

But when we truly begin to listen to the people who believe misinformation, we can often help counter false claims.

So in this upcoming election, how can we push back against election misinformation when we hear it? Let’s examine some strategies.

The role of anxiety

Most people think that others who believe misinformation will change their minds if provided with the right evidence, but that’s simply not true.

People have good reasons for not wanting to change their minds, even when confronted with contradictory facts.

One of the key personality traits linked to the belief in misinformation turns out to be anxiety. This can manifest in ways that resist correction.

For example, most of us feel anxious when we have to hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time. So if we already believe misinformation and are confronted with evidence to the contrary, we may reject the evidence to avoid the dissonance of managing both beliefs.

Additionally, people might believe something because others in their social group believe it, meaning there is social anxiety associated with rejecting the group’s belief, even if it’s wrong.

Finally, anxiety about the future can drive people to accept misinformation that helps to relieve those fears.

Taken together, this means that correcting political misinformation, which involves all three of the above triggers — self, social and future anxiety — cannot be accomplished solely by providing evidence.

We need to mitigate these anxieties while engaging in gentle correction since outright correcting can make the anxieties worse.

The ‘AIMS’ method

Motivational interviewing is a proven method of pushing back against another type of polarizing misinformation: health misinformation.

One particular approach to motivational interviewing, known as the AIMS method, has been successfully tested in Canada for countering vaccine misinformation.

AIMS stands for Announce, Inquire, Mirror and Secure. It provides a way to address misinformation while building the sort of connection and trust that people need to reduce the anxiety that is the trigger for believing misinformation in the first place.

The first step, Announce, is where the topic is approached.

In the medical world, this usually occurs when a doctor announces that it’s time for a vaccine, but in the world of political misinformation, the announcement doesn’t have to come from a professional.

Instead, Announce can occur when the person you are talking to announces a piece of political misinformation, like the claim that the government is vaccinating people for the purposes of controlling the population.

Announce is basically where the process of addressing misinformation begins.

Inquire is the step where motivational interviewing really begins to differ from a conventional approach of simply providing evidence to back up a false claim.

In this second step, it’s important to ask questions, and approach the misinformation with a sense of curiosity.

Basically, as you probe more and more deeply, you’re trying to understand the anxieties that are driving the misinformation belief.

As you begin to ask questions, you begin to also engage in the third step, Mirror.

Mirroring means checking in, and repeating what you’re hearing so that the person you are talking to recognizes they’re being heard. At this stage, you can begin to introduce pieces of evidence that disprove the claims being made, but only after you truly understand the person’s concerns and can reflect them back.

It’s also important to manage how you introduce contradictory evidence. It must be done with compassion and a gentle but reassuring manner.

Finally, when all the concerns have been addressed, you can begin the final step, which is to Secure trust.

Here you can follow up on the announcement that sparked the discussion — the original piece of misinformation — and see if the person you’re talking to now feels differently than they did before.

Importantly, you may not be successful at securing this step in just one conversation, but if you have conducted the other steps properly, you will have built important trust that, over time, is more likely to help you counter future misinformation with the person you’re talking to.

Preserving relationships

Combating any misinformation, and especially political misinformation, is not a quick or easy process. It may have to take place in repeated discussions over a long period of time.

Political misinformation is particularly difficult to counter because political views are often tied deeply to people’s self-identity, and also because political misinformation is often shared within social groups.

But if you engage in motivated interviewing this election season, you may make a small difference.

At the very least, you will help to preserve relationships with friends and loved ones that are often frayed when political misinformation enters the picture.

» Jaigris Hodson is an associate professor of interdisciplinary studies at Royal Roads University.

» This column was originally published at The Conversation Canada: theconversation.com/ca