Misinformation is everywhere. From social media feeds to dinner table conversations, false claims shape opinions, influence policies, and even dictate lifestyle choices. For years, the go-to strategy for combating misinformation has been debunking, directly correcting false claims with facts. But here’s the catch: people don’t like being told they’re wrong.
Worse, studies show that corrections can sometimes backfire. When you challenge a deeply held belief, especially one tied to identity or worldview, people dig in their heels. The false claim doesn’t just persist, it can feel more true after the attempt to correct it. Conspiracy theories, in particular, are notoriously resistant to refutation because they’re often structured to be unfalsifiable. So, what’s the alternative?
The Power of Bypassing
New research suggests a different approach: bypassing. Instead of confronting misinformation head-on, this method redirects attention to a different, evidence-backed belief that leads to the same conclusion. The idea is simple: if people hold multiple beliefs about an issue, shifting which one is top of mind can change their attitudes, without the defensiveness that comes with being corrected.
In a series of experiments, researchers tested this strategy against traditional debunking. Participants were exposed to misinformation about genetically modified (GM) crops, specifically, false claims that GM corn causes allergic reactions or tumor growth in mice. They were then divided into groups:
- Bypassing group: Read an article highlighting a different belief (e.g., GM crops could alleviate global hunger or save bee populations).
- Correction group: Read a direct refutation of the misinformation.
- Control group: Received no additional information or an unrelated article.
The results? Both bypassing and direct correction reduced support for restrictive GM food policies. In one experiment, the bypassing approach was just as effective as debunking at neutralizing the misinformation’s impact. Even more intriguing: the two strategies worked differently. Debunking reduced belief in the false claim, while bypassing strengthened belief in the alternative claim, without necessarily dismantling the original misinformation.
Why Bypassing Works
The psychology behind this is fascinating. Attitudes aren’t built on single beliefs but on a web of them. When you activate a competing belief, even one the person already holds, it can overshadow the misinformation. For example, reminding someone that GM crops could help feed the world might shift their focus away from the false claim about allergies. This approach sidesteps the emotional resistance that often comes with being corrected.
What’s more, bypassing doesn’t require the alternative belief to be new. In one experiment, the bypassing belief (GM crops can address global hunger) was already widely accepted. Simply reminding people of what they already knew was enough to change their attitudes. In another, introducing a novel belief (GM crops benefit bees) worked just as well. This flexibility makes bypassing a versatile tool for advocates.
When to Use Bypassing
Bypassing isn’t a a fix for everything. The studies measured short-term outcomes, so we don’t yet know if the effects last. It may also be less effective when misinformation is highly accessible or deeply ingrained. However, for issues where direct confrontation risks backfiring, such as animal welfare, climate change, or public health, bypassing offers a promising alternative.
For advocates, the takeaway is clear: sometimes, the best way to counter misinformation isn’t to fight it, but to outshine it. By leading with compelling, evidence-backed claims that activate counter-beliefs, you can shift attitudes without triggering defensiveness. This is especially useful for audiences with conspiracy-adjacent beliefs or strong preexisting opposition.
Practical Takeaways
- Identify Counter-Beliefs: What other beliefs does your audience hold that align with your goal? For example, if someone opposes GM crops due to misinformation about health risks, highlight their potential to reduce world hunger.
- Frame Positively: Instead of saying, “This claim is false,” try, “Here’s another way to look at it.”
- Avoid Confrontation: If direct correction risks alienating your audience, bypassing may be the smarter play.
- Test and Adapt: Not all misinformation is equally sticky. Experiment with bypassing in different contexts to see what resonates.
Final Thoughts
In a world where misinformation spreads faster than ever, advocates need every tool at their disposal. Bypassing won’t replace debunking entirely, but it’s a powerful addition to the toolkit, one that prioritizes psychological savvy over brute, force correction. The next time you’re tempted to dive into a fact-checking battle, ask yourself: Could a different belief do the work for me?
What strategies have you found effective in countering misinformation? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Thank you for reading. Please, visit my blog to read more from me. And don’t forget to sign up for Wise&Shine!
This post was drafted with the help of a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by me for fact checking, for clarity and accuracy.