Listen to the article
In a small Malaysian town in 2019, nearly 40 schoolgirls aged 12 to 18 began screaming uncontrollably, claiming to have seen a “face of pure evil” with disturbing images of blood and gore. The incident in Ketereh made international headlines and was identified by experts as a case of mass psychogenic illness—a psychological condition that manifests in physical symptoms and spreads socially, much like a virus.
This phenomenon illustrates how social connections create pathways for the transmission of not only physical illnesses but also psychological states and behaviors. The incident offers valuable insights into how misinformation spreads through social networks, according to public health researchers who study social and behavioral science.
Social norms—our perceptions of how common or acceptable certain behaviors are within our personal networks—can significantly influence our actions, even when these perceptions don’t accurately reflect reality. For many people, perception becomes their reality, guiding their behavior regardless of factual accuracy.
Unlike viruses, which often require just a single exposure to spread, behaviors typically need multiple contacts to take root in a social network. This process, known as “complex contagion,” explains why socially learned behaviors take time to become established within communities.
Fashion trends illustrate this phenomenon in everyday life. When baggy jeans returned to popularity, many millennials initially rejected the style, only to gradually reconsider after multiple exposures through their social connections. This same dynamic plays out more intensely on social media platforms like Instagram, where initial skepticism about unusual fashion items can quickly transform into acceptance after viewing numerous positive comments.
More concerning is the application of these principles to misinformation on social platforms. Research has consistently shown that false information spreads faster and more extensively than truth online. Before fact-checkers can effectively debunk falsehoods, misinformation may have already permeated social networks, taking hold through complex contagion mechanisms.
People spread misinformation for various reasons—sometimes to advance personal agendas, creating echo chambers that filter out contrary viewpoints. Even without malicious intent, misinformation spreads when users fail to verify accuracy or lack digital media literacy skills.
To combat this problem, researchers have adapted a concept from the 1960s called “pre-bunking.” This approach trains people to recognize and resist misinformation before encountering it in the wild—similar to how vaccines build immunity by exposing the body to weakened pathogens. Google has developed pre-bunking quizzes that teach users to identify common manipulation tactics like false dichotomies, scapegoating, and slippery slope fallacies.
The effectiveness of pre-bunking extends beyond combating misinformation. Research indicates it can delay harmful behaviors like tobacco use among adolescents. However, the protective effects fade within months without regular reinforcement or “booster shots.”
Group-based approaches show particular promise for maintaining pre-bunking effects. When multiple members of a social network develop strong resistance skills, the entire community becomes more resilient against harmful influences—a form of psychological herd immunity.
This collaborative approach to resistance skills training provides essential protection against both online falsehoods and peer pressure toward harmful behaviors. The research increasingly suggests that social networks can be leveraged positively, with community members reinforcing each other’s capacity to resist harmful influences.
As digital landscapes continue to evolve, understanding these social contagion mechanisms becomes increasingly vital for public health professionals, educators, and communities working to protect themselves from the spread of harmful misinformation and behaviors.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


10 Comments
This is an interesting look at how misinformation and false beliefs can spread rapidly through social networks. I wonder what approaches could be most effective at combating these dynamics in the digital age.
Interesting to see the parallels drawn between the spread of physical illnesses and the spread of misinformation. The social network effects at play are quite powerful.
The social contagion aspect of misinformation is concerning. Developing strategies to promote critical thinking and fact-checking skills among the general public seems crucial to counter these trends.
Agreed. Educating people on media literacy and source verification could help mitigate the spread of false information online.
While the examples focus on physical and psychological phenomena, I wonder if similar dynamics could play out in the spread of misinformation related to mining, energy, and other industrial sectors.
This is an important issue that deserves continued research and public awareness efforts. Developing robust strategies to recognize and counter false information will be essential going forward.
The insights about social norms influencing our perceptions of reality, even when they’re inaccurate, are quite thought-provoking. Combating this dynamic seems crucial for maintaining a well-informed populace.
As someone interested in the mining and commodities space, I’m curious to see how these social contagion principles might apply to the spread of rumors or false narratives around specific companies or projects in this industry.
This article raises important questions about how we can build societal resilience against the proliferation of misinformation. Developing effective countermeasures will require a multifaceted approach.
The example of the mass psychogenic illness incident in Malaysia highlights how quickly erroneous perceptions and behaviors can propagate through tight-knit communities. Understanding these dynamics is key to developing effective interventions.