Does Information Affect Our Beliefs?

It was the social-science equal of Barbenheimer weekend: 4 blockbuster tutorial papers, revealed in two of the world’s main journals on the identical day. Written by elite researchers from universities throughout the United States, the papers in Nature and Science every examined totally different points of one of the compelling public-policy problems with our time: how social media is shaping our information, beliefs and behaviors.

Relying on information collected from a whole bunch of thousands and thousands of Facebook customers over a number of months, the researchers discovered that, unsurprisingly, the platform and its algorithms wielded appreciable affect over what info individuals noticed, how a lot time they spent scrolling and tapping on-line, and their information about news occasions. Facebook additionally tended to point out customers info from sources they already agreed with, creating political “filter bubbles” that strengthened individuals’s worldviews, and was a vector for misinformation, primarily for politically conservative customers.

But the largest news got here from what the research didn’t discover: regardless of Facebook’s affect on the unfold of knowledge, there was no proof that the platform had a major impact on individuals’s underlying beliefs, or on ranges of political polarization.

These are simply the most recent findings to recommend that the connection between the knowledge we eat and the beliefs we maintain is much extra complicated than is often understood.

‘Filter bubbles’ and democracy

Sometimes the damaging results of social media are clear. In 2018, after I went to Sri Lanka to report on anti-Muslim pogroms, I discovered that Facebook’s newsfeed had been a vector for the rumors that fashioned a pretext for vigilante violence, and that WhatsApp teams had develop into platforms for organizing and finishing up the precise assaults. In Brazil final January, supporters of former President Jair Bolsonaro used social media to unfold false claims that fraud had price him the election, after which turned to WhatsApp and Telegram teams to plan a mob assault on federal buildings within the capital, Brasília. It was the same playbook to that used within the United States on Jan. 6, 2021, when supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol.

But except for discrete occasions like these, there have additionally been considerations that social media, and notably the algorithms used to recommend content material to customers, is perhaps contributing to the extra basic unfold of misinformation and polarization.

The idea, roughly, goes one thing like this: in contrast to up to now, when most individuals acquired their info from the identical few mainstream sources, social media now makes it attainable for individuals to filter news round their very own pursuits and biases. As a end result, they principally share and see tales from individuals on their very own facet of the political spectrum. That “filter bubble” of knowledge supposedly exposes customers to more and more skewed variations of actuality, undermining consensus and lowering their understanding of individuals on the opposing facet.

The idea gained mainstream consideration after Trump was elected in 2016. “The ‘Filter Bubble’ Explains Why Trump Won and You Didn’t See It Coming,” introduced a New York Magazine article just a few days after the election. “Your Echo Chamber is Destroying Democracy,” Wired Magazine claimed just a few weeks later.

Changing info doesn’t change minds

But with out rigorous testing, it’s been onerous to determine whether or not the filter bubble impact was actual. The 4 new research are the primary in a collection of 16 peer-reviewed papers that arose from a collaboration between Meta, the corporate that owns Facebook and Instagram, and a bunch of researchers from universities together with Princeton, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford and others.

Meta gave unprecedented entry to the researchers through the three-month interval earlier than the 2020 U.S. election, permitting them to investigate information from greater than 200 million customers and likewise conduct randomized managed experiments on giant teams of customers who agreed to take part. It’s value noting that the social media big spent $20 million on work from NORC on the University of Chicago (beforehand the National Opinion Research Center), a nonpartisan analysis group that helped acquire a number of the information. And whereas Meta didn’t pay the researchers itself, a few of its staff labored with the teachers, and some of the authors had acquired funding from the corporate up to now. But the researchers took steps to guard the independence of their work, together with pre-registering their analysis questions upfront, and Meta was solely capable of veto requests that might violate customers’ privateness.

The research, taken collectively, recommend that there’s proof for the primary a part of the “filter bubble” idea: Facebook customers did are inclined to see posts from like-minded sources, and there have been excessive levels of “ideological segregation” with little overlap between what liberal and conservative customers noticed, clicked and shared. Most misinformation was concentrated in a conservative nook of the social community, making right-wing customers way more prone to encounter political lies on the platform.

“I think it’s a matter of supply and demand,” stated Sandra González-Bailón, the lead writer on the paper that studied misinformation. Facebook customers skew conservative, making the potential marketplace for partisan misinformation bigger on the appropriate. And on-line curation, amplified by algorithms that prioritize probably the most emotive content material, might reinforce these market results, she added.

When it got here to the second a part of the idea — that this filtered content material would form individuals’s beliefs and worldviews, usually in dangerous methods — the papers discovered little help. One experiment intentionally decreased content material from like-minded sources, in order that customers noticed extra diverse info, however discovered no impact on polarization or political attitudes. Removing the algorithm’s affect on individuals’s feeds, in order that they only noticed content material in chronological order, “did not significantly alter levels of issue polarization, affective polarization, political knowledge, or other key attitudes,” the researchers discovered. Nor did eradicating content material shared by different customers.

Algorithms have been in lawmakers’ cross hairs for years, however most of the arguments for regulating them have presumed that they’ve real-world affect. This analysis complicates that narrative.

But it additionally has implications which might be far broader than social media itself, reaching a number of the core assumptions round how we kind our beliefs and political opinions. Brendan Nyhan, who researches political misperceptions and was a lead writer of one of many research, stated the outcomes had been putting as a result of they steered a good looser hyperlink between info and beliefs than had been proven in earlier analysis. “From the area that I do my research in, the finding that has emerged as the field has developed is that factual information often changes people’s factual views, but those changes don’t always translate into different attitudes,” he stated. But the brand new research steered a good weaker relationship. “We’re seeing null effects on both factual views and attitudes.”

As a journalist, I confess a sure private funding in the concept that presenting individuals with info will have an effect on their beliefs and selections. But if that isn’t true, then the potential results would attain past my very own occupation. If new info doesn’t change beliefs or political help, as an example, then that can have an effect on not simply voters’ view of the world, however their skill to carry democratic leaders to account.

Thank you for being a subscriber

Read previous editions of the e-newsletter right here.

If you’re having fun with what you’re studying, please take into account recommending it to others. They can enroll right here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters right here.

I’d love your suggestions on this article. Please electronic mail ideas and strategies to interpreter@nytimes.com. You also can comply with me on Twitter.