New Study Reveals Gap Between Beliefs and Actions on Social Media Misinformation

A groundbreaking study published in Scientific Reports has uncovered significant disparities between what social media users believe should be done about misinformation and what they actually do when encountering it online.

Researchers from Carnegie Mellon University surveyed over 1,000 American social media users, examining how they respond to false or misleading content in their feeds and how relationships with those posting misinformation influence their actions.

The study, led by researchers King, Phillips, and Carley, shifts focus away from platform-level interventions like fact-checking and content moderation to examine individual user behavior—a critical but often overlooked factor in misinformation’s spread.

“While platforms continue developing technological solutions, understanding how everyday users respond to misinformation they encounter provides valuable insights for developing more effective countermeasures,” explained the research team.

One of the most striking findings revealed a substantial gap between ideals and reality. While respondents overwhelmingly believed that people should take high-effort actions like correcting misinformation through comments or direct messages, they admitted to taking far less action themselves when encountering problematic content.

The researchers categorized responses into three levels: “high-effort” actions (commenting to correct misinformation or messaging the poster directly), “low-effort” actions (reporting posts or blocking users), and “no effort” (simply ignoring the misinformation).

This belief-behavior gap suggests many users recognize the importance of combating misinformation but don’t follow through, possibly assuming others will handle the problem. The researchers note that addressing situational constraints like time limitations or lack of confidence could encourage more active countering behavior.

Social proximity also plays a significant role in how people respond to misinformation. Survey participants reported being more likely to intervene when false content came from friends or family rather than acquaintances or strangers. This finding suggests people feel more comfortable confronting those they know well or feel a stronger responsibility to correct close contacts.

In a political landscape often characterized by polarization, the study revealed rare bipartisan consensus. Over 70% of Americans across the political spectrum—from strong Republicans to strong Democrats—believe individuals should counter misinformation shared by close contacts and correct themselves if they post inaccurate information.

This broad agreement presents a unique opportunity for social media companies to implement user-led interventions that could receive wider acceptance than more controversial measures like content removal or account restrictions.

Based on these findings, the researchers proposed several recommendations for platforms and policymakers:

First, social media platforms should develop features encouraging users to take accountability for accurate information, especially when close contacts share questionable content. Since users are more likely to counter misinformation from people they know, these relationships offer strategic intervention points.

Second, improving reporting functionality with greater transparency could increase user participation. Platforms should clarify how reports are managed and inform users about outcomes when they flag problematic content.

Third, digital media literacy programs should expand beyond teaching people to identify misinformation to include training on constructive countering methods. Educational efforts should frame responding to misinformation as a shared social responsibility.

“As misinformation tactics continue evolving, our countermeasures must adapt accordingly,” noted the researchers. “Our study demonstrates that while people generally believe they should counter misinformation, they often hesitate unless they’re close to the person posting it.”

The research comes at a critical time when social media companies face mounting pressure to address misinformation while balancing free speech concerns. By leveraging existing user beliefs about the importance of accuracy and focusing on improving user-led interventions, platforms may find more effective and widely acceptable approaches to combat the spread of false information.