People believe that while others can’t spot false information online, they are actually good at it themselves, new findings show, highlighting issues of online misinformation in the wake of the summer’s social media-fueled riots.
A new survey of the public’s online awareness, carried out by BIT (the Behavioural Insight Team) finds wide variations in people’s confidence in spotting false information online. The randomised trial with over 2000 participants found that while a majority of the British public feel confident in their individual ability to spot false information online (59%*), they’re not at all confident that anyone else could do as good a job with only 36% of people believing that others could do the same.
In addition, a large minority (42%*) admit they don’t feel very confident in spotting false information personally.
During the riots, users of X and TikTok were most likely to say they encountered false information but most users said they turned to linear television to get news as events unfolded.
The survey also examined users’ perceptions of the prevalence of false information on particular platforms and how willing they were to vote with their feet to get social media platforms to take action on the issue.
Other key findings included:
- 74% of social media users reported seeing false information on at least one of their social media platforms in the last week
- Twitter and TikTok users reported they encountered false information the most, with LinkedIn users reporting they encountered it least
- Only a fifth (22%) thought users should bear responsibility for the spread of false information but over half (58%) felt platforms were responsible
- Despite half (52%) of respondents saying that they would be very or moderately likely to switch to a platform with less false information if there were a ranking, 83% of respondents said they would not pay for premium, false information-free versions of the platforms they currently use.
- During the riots eight out of ten people sourced their news about the events from traditional linear television (81%) whilst almost six out of ten used social media (58%) and only around a third used radio (30%) or newspapers (33%).
- Respondents frequently mentioned verifying information through established news outlets such as the BBC but some also indicated using social media or other platforms to look for live streams, videos, or alternative social media sources to validate what they saw.
Eva Kolker, head of consumer and business markets said:
“Our latest research has added to the growing evidence that social media users are overconfident in their ability to spot false information – but paradoxically this might actually be making people more susceptible to it.
Events in the UK and abroad, from America to India, have shown that casually shared misinformation and actively sown disinformation can have profoundly dangerous real world consequences. “
Many of our attempts to improve online safety have focused on improving the knowledge and capability of individual users, and, while important, our research shows there are inherent limits to the effectiveness of this approach. “
We can’t just rely on individuals changing their behaviour, to really combat misinformation we also need social media platforms to take action and regulators and government to intervene to level the playing field.
For example, platforms could change the defaults of content controls to inhibit the circulation of false content, while regulators and policy-makers could increase transparency and accountability by ranking platforms based on the prevalence of false or hateful content, which could incentivise platforms to do better and empower consumers to switch platforms if they don’t.”
The experiment, designed to probe the public’s levels of confidence, and the perceived gap in ability between oneself and others (known as ‘illusory superiority’) is designed to build on the evidence that the overestimation of one’s ability to spot false information is a factor in the spread of false and low-quality information on social media.
Past research in this field has found that the overconfident were most susceptible to believing and spreading false information, and that people’s confidence in identifying false information didn’t match their actual ability to do so.
BIT’s latest findings highlight further that attempts to improve the public’s ability to manage their safety online needs to also address overconfidence as a crucial part of developing the skills to spot false information.
Note to Editors
* 101% (59% + 42%) total due to rounding
- Methodology: Nationally representative sample of 2131 UK adults, conducted online between 16 August 2024 – 19 August 2024.
- All participants answered the questions in this release except for the question ‘How well do you think you can spot false information on social media?’ where participants were randomly allocated to either answer a question about their own ability to spot false information, or to answer a question about how well they thought others could spot false information. By randomising respondents to either answer about themselves or about others, we reduced potential bias that may arise through ‘order effects’, wherein answers to questions about oneself may affect responses to how we see others.
- In light of the focus on social media platforms’ role in England’s recent riots, BIT has been examining the behavioural factors underpinning the phenomena of false information and hateful content.
- Our latest survey corroborates the view that general overconfidence limits the effectiveness of ‘downstream’ interventions focused on an individual’s ability to identify and respond to false content.
- Though such interventions are important tools in the fight against mis/disinformation, their voluntary nature and the fact that the majority of users are overconfident about their susceptibility, limits their potential impact.
Fig. 1: Confidence in spotting false information on social media
Fig. 2 Frequency of false information in the past week
