By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
Every day, we are reminded that we live in a new age that can be called “post-truth.” We pay a lot of attention to external sources of misinformation, whether it is motivated public figures, partisan news networks or questionable private news blogs, not to mention the variety of memes, bots, and outright fake-news factories. These external sources of false information are definitely a factor in our increasingly strained relationship to truth. But there is also another source. As Pogo, the old cartoon possum, said many years ago, “We have met the enemy…and he is us.” In addition to receiving a diet of news that may be false, we will also readily self-generate fake news without knowing it.
That is the conclusion of a recent study (Coronel, Poulson, & Sweitzer, 2019). Even after being given accurate information, people will believe they are recalling accurately but will actually be creating their own fake facts, which are more consistent with their prior beliefs. The researchers from Ohio State gave participants accurate data, in this case on levels of support for same-sex marriage and on illegal immigration rates, knowing that in some cases the information fit the participant’s default beliefs and in other cases it didn’t. Predictably, the information was much easier to remember when it fit their default beliefs. But more surprisingly, when it didn’t, it was more likely to be altered during recall in the preferred direction, with participants still believing that they were recalling accurately. According to lead author Jason Coronel, “People can self-generate their own misinformation. It doesn’t all come from external sources.” He continues, “They may not be doing it purposely, but their own biases can lead them astray. And the problem becomes larger when they share their self-generated misinformation with others.” This research has some implications for settings where we expect people to receive, remember and use information, like on a jury. In this post, I’ll highlight three implications.
Don’t Fully Trust Memory
These findings provide another reason to believe that juries are not tape-recorders just storing all of that evidence and argument for later use. Instead, they are going to process and alter the information as they receive it. Remembering and using the information, as they must during deliberation, is an act of reconstruction and not just recall. So instead of just thinking about what jurors will understand and remember, also think about their motivation, and the direction they would want to go with what they receive. Make their recall as easy as possible by getting it in writing and reminding them of exhibit numbers so they can use it later.
Be Careful With Repeated Information
One interesting finding the researchers observed is a social role for self-generated falsehoods. When participants shared their self-generated misinformation, the numbers tended to get farther and farther from the truth, and again, in the direction of what best served that person’s pre-existing bias. So one implication for juries is that we may have an additional reason to be cautious about pre-deliberation discussions, or the practice allowed in some courts of letting jurors discuss the case as the evidence comes in instead of waiting for formal deliberation. More sharing, particularly if it is informal, could lead to more misinformation and premature conclusions.
And Remember, the Truth Still Matters
Thankfully, it remains true that a jury is still a marvelous machine for checking bias: If one juror distorts the evidence, there is a good chance that someone else will correct it. And most jurors, at least, will still strive to be accurate and to focus on what is true rather than on what is preferred. Juror comments following a recent high-profile verdict reinforce that idea. The trial ended last month for Roger Stone, the operative who was convicted of lying to Congress about being the Trump Campaign’s connection to the hacked information from Democratic Party servers. After convicting on all counts, juror Seth Cousins penned an opinion piece for The Washington Post that perfectly captured much of what makes the American jury great. He wrote, “The real dispute was whether Stone had lied under oath and whether that mattered. The defense offered by Stone’s attorney can be summed up in to two words: So what?” Getting to the verdict, he continued, “Our unanimous conclusion was this: The truth matters. Telling the truth under oath matters. At a time when so much of our public discourse is based on deception or just lies, it is more important than ever that we still have places where the truth can be presented, examined and discerned.” Noting that Congress is one of those places, I will add that, in ambitions at least, the jury is one of those places as well.
______
Other Posts on ‘Fake News:’
- Lazy or Partisan: Address the Cause of Fake News Susceptibility
- Use the Features that Make the Fake News Fly
- Expect the “Fake” to Get Very Real
Coronel, J. C., Poulsen, S., & Sweitzer, M. D. (2019). Investigating the generation and spread of numerical misinformation: A combined eye movement monitoring and social transmission approach. Human Communication Research. DOI: 10.1093/hcr/hqz012