Reviewed by Devon Frye for Psychology Today
In today’s information-saturated world, directly correcting false claims is often seen as the go-to strategy for combating misinformation. But what if there’s another, less confrontational approach that can be just as—if not more—effective?
A new study offers insight into a technique called bypassing, which avoids head-on correction and instead highlights truthful, positively framed information. After sharing the study on social media and seeing the strong response it generated, I wanted to dig deeper into what bypassing is, how it works, and when it might be most useful.
Bypassing is defined as “a response to misinformation that introduces or bolsters nonmutually exclusive alternative beliefs with opposite evaluative implication to that of the misinformation.” In other words, instead of directly countering an inaccurate statement about a topic that someone feels negatively about, you provide a positive and truthful statement on the same topic. For example, if someone claims GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are harmful to consume, you would “bypass” the inaccuracy by focusing on a positive and accurate statement about how GMOs help the bee population.
Through six experiments, the authors of this study found that bypassing is often more effective than simple, direct corrections in countering misinformation. The topics used for misinformation included claims that GMOs, 5G technology, and vaccines were harmful. The researchers assessed participants’ attitudes by measuring their support for policies that restricted these topics after exposure to either a simple correction, bypassing, or no correction.
To give you a sense of what bypassing looks like in practice, here’s one example they used for vaccine misinformation:
For more, click here.