PsyberSpace: Navigating Tech, Media, and Mind

Title: "Well, Actually...": Unraveling the Psychology of Online Corrections

Introduction:
Welcome back to PsyberSpace! I'm your host, Leslie Poston, and today we're diving into the morass of online corrections—exploring the psychology behind the "reply guys" and "well actually" folks who are omnipresent in our digital conversations. We'll dissect what drives these behaviors, their impact on discourse, and how they play a role in the spread of misinformation. Let’s explore why some people feel compelled to correct others online and how this behavior shapes the broader digital landscape.

In this extended episode, we'll not only examine the psychological motivations behind online corrections but also delve into real-world examples, discuss the latest research in this field, and provide practical advice for navigating these often tricky social interactions. Whether you're a casual social media user, a content creator, or someone interested in the intricacies of human behavior online, this episode promises to offer valuable insights into a phenomenon that affects us all in the digital age.

Segment 1: Understanding the Urge to Correct
In the realm of online interactions, the impulse to correct others can stem from a variety of psychological motivations. From a desire for accuracy to a need for social recognition, individuals may feel compelled to point out errors or offer unsolicited advice. Researchers like Dr. John Sweller have explored how cognitive load theory may apply here, suggesting that some people may experience genuine cognitive discomfort when encountering information they perceive as incorrect, thus feeling an urge to correct it to restore their mental equilibrium.

To illustrate this, consider a scenario where someone scrolling through their social media feed encounters a post about climate change that contains a factual error. The discomfort they feel upon seeing this misinformation can be so intense that they feel compelled to comment with a correction, even if they weren't originally planning to engage with the post.

Moreover, the anonymity of the internet might lower inhibitions, allowing individuals to express opinions or corrections they would typically refrain from in face-to-face interactions. This phenomenon ties into what psychologists call the "online disinhibition effect," where the absence of physical presence can lead to more uninhibited behavior. Dr. John Suler, who coined this term, identified six factors that contribute to this effect: dissociative anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, solipsistic introjection, dissociative imagination, and minimization of authority.

Psychological factors such as the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals with lower competence might overestimate their knowledge, often play into why some are more prone to correct others. This cognitive bias can lead to an inflated sense of confidence, prompting unsolicited corrections as individuals believe they are more informed than they actually are. A classic example of this might be someone with a basic understanding of a complex scientific topic confidently correcting an actual expert in the field, unaware of the depth of their own ignorance.

Adding to this complex picture, social media platforms provide a unique environment where individuals gain visibility and a sense of authority by frequently engaging in corrections, regardless of the accuracy of their contributions. This creates a feedback loop that can reinforce correction behavior, as users receive attention and engagement for their inputs. The gamification elements of social media, such as likes, shares, and comments, can further incentivize this behavior, turning correction into a form of social currency.

Segment 2: 'Reply Guys' and 'Well, Actually' Interactions
The phenomenon of 'reply guys'—those who frequently comment on posts often without full context or with the aim to contradict—highlights a dynamic where online anonymity and lack of accountability embolden more aggressive communication styles. This behavior can escalate into what's known as "sealioning," a form of online harassment where users persistently request evidence or answers to questions, feigning civility as a tactic to exhaust the opponent.

A classic example of sealioning might involve someone commenting on a post about gender inequality with seemingly innocent questions like "Can you provide specific examples?" or "Have you considered alternative explanations?" When the original poster responds, the sealioner continues to ask for more evidence, sources, or clarification, all while maintaining a facade of politeness. This tactic can be particularly draining for marginalized individuals who often bear the brunt of such interactions.

The 'reply guy' term has come to characterize men who frequently comment on posts, often unsolicited, believing they need to add their perspective or correction regardless of their expertise on the topic. This behavior not only reflects a need for visibility but also a deeper desire for control and dominance in conversations. It's particularly prevalent in interactions with women content creators, where reply guys might offer unnecessary explanations or unsolicited advice, a behavior often referred to as "mansplaining."

Similarly, the 'well, actually' individuals—those who can't resist correcting any minor inaccuracies or adding their own tidbits of knowledge—often disrupt discussions and can deter others from participating. Studies have shown that these interactions, while seemingly benign, can discourage people from participating in online discourse, particularly affecting women and minorities who are often the targets of unsolicited corrections or debates. This can lead to a chilling effect on free speech, as the environment becomes hostile, pushing individuals away from engaging in meaningful discussions.

Dr. Jessica Vitak has conducted research on online harassment and its effects on participation. Her work suggests that repeated exposure to such behaviors can lead to self-censorship and reduced engagement, particularly among marginalized groups.

Segment 3: The Role of Misinformation and Corrections
Correcting misinformation online is a double-edged sword. On one hand, addressing false information is crucial in preventing its spread; on the other, the manner and frequency of corrections can unintentionally reinforce the misinformation. This is partly due to the backfire effect, where individuals become more entrenched in their beliefs when presented with contradicting evidence.

The impact of arguing in comments sections extends beyond mere annoyance. It can actively contribute to the dissemination of misinformation, as repeated arguments around false assertions keep them circulating within public view. The visibility conferred by these engagements, regardless of the intent to correct, often serves to amplify the very myths or falsehoods intended to be debunked.

A study by Dr. Brendan Nyhan and Dr. Jason Reifler demonstrated the backfire effect in political contexts, where corrections of misinformation sometimes leads to increased belief in the original falsehood among certain groups. They did find when revisiting their research later that if the corrective information comes from what the person being factchecked perceives as an aligned source this may not be the case, however. This highlights the complexity of addressing misinformation and the need for nuanced approaches to corrections.

In an age where misinformation can spread rapidly, the act of correcting factual inaccuracies is vital. However, the manner in which these corrections are delivered can either facilitate understanding and acceptance or lead to further entrenchment of false beliefs. This highlights the need for effective correction strategies that not only provide accurate information but also consider the psychological aspects of how people receive and process corrections.

The challenge is further complicated by the speed at which information spreads online. A study by MIT researchers found that false news spreads more rapidly on Twitter than true stories do. The researchers analyzed about 126,000 stories tweeted by about 3 million people more than 4.5 million times. They found that false news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories were. It also takes true stories about six times as long to reach 1,500 people as it does for false stories to reach the same number of people.
Segment 4: The Offline Consequences of Online Corrections and Misinformation
While we often think of online interactions as existing in a separate sphere from "real life," the truth is that what happens in digital spaces can have profound impacts on offline behavior and society at large. The spread of misinformation and the culture of aggressive corrections online can lead to serious real-world consequences, particularly for marginalized communities and democratic processes.
One of the most concerning impacts is on voter behavior and democratic participation. Online misinformation campaigns, often amplified by well-meaning individuals attempting to correct them, can lead to voter suppression. For example, false claims about polling station closures, voting requirements, or election fraud can discourage people from exercising their right to vote. A study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that exposure to misinformation about voting processes led to increased confusion and decreased intention to vote among surveyed individuals.
Additionally, the constant barrage of corrections and arguments in online spaces can lead to general political disengagement. Dr. Patricia Rossini has found that exposure to uncivil political discussions online can decrease individuals' willingness to participate in political processes offline. This "political fatigue" can result in lower voter turnout and reduced civic engagement, undermining the foundations of democratic societies.
The impact on marginalized communities, particularly LGBTQ+ and BIPOC individuals, can be even more direct and dangerous. Online spaces where misinformation about these communities spreads unchecked, or where attempts at correction lead to heated arguments, can fuel offline prejudice and violence.
For instance, misinformation about transgender individuals, often mis-framed as "concerns" in online comments, has been linked to real-world policy decisions that restrict trans rights an to real-world harm against the trans community and to some women who may not appear “traditionally female”. We saw this play out on a large scale this week with the misinformation spread against Olympic athlete Imane Khalif by transphobes who leveraged online comments and discourse to fan flames of hate. The Southern Poverty Law Center has documented how online hate speech and misinformation campaigns against LGBTQ+ people have corresponded with increases in hate crimes against these communities.
Similarly, racial misinformation spread online has real-world consequences for BIPOC communities. False narratives about crime rates, immigration, or cultural practices can reinforce stereotypes and lead to discriminatory behaviors in workplaces, educational institutions, and public spaces. The Stop AAPI Hate coalition reported a surge in anti-Asian hate incidents during the COVID-19 pandemic, many of which were fueled by online misinformation about the virus's origins.
It's crucial to note that even well-intentioned corrections can sometimes amplify harmful narratives. When people argue against misinformation in comment sections, they may inadvertently increase its visibility and reach. This phenomenon, known as the "illusory truth effect," suggests that repeated exposure to false information, even in the context of a correction, can increase the likelihood of it being perceived as true.
Furthermore, the emotional toll of constantly encountering and engaging with misinformation online can lead to anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal in offline settings. This is particularly true for members of targeted communities who may feel unsafe or unwelcome in public spaces due to the prevalence of online hate and misinformation.
To address these issues, I recommend a multi-faceted approach:
1. Media literacy education: Teaching people how to critically evaluate online information and understand its potential real-world impact.
2. Platform responsibility: Encouraging social media companies to improve their algorithms and moderation policies to reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
3. Community support: Creating offline support networks for marginalized communities affected by online hate and misinformation.
4. Positive narrative building: Actively promoting accurate, positive information about marginalized communities to counter negative narratives.
5. Intersectional approach: Recognizing that online misinformation often intersects with multiple forms of discrimination and addressing these complexities in correction efforts.
By understanding the real-world consequences of online interactions, we can better appreciate the importance of fostering a more responsible and empathetic digital culture. As online users, we must consider not just the immediate impact of our corrections or arguments, but also their potential ripple effects in the offline world.
Segment 5: Strategies for Effective Corrections
Navigating the complex landscape of online discourse requires tactful approaches to correction that consider both psychological impact and communication effectiveness. Strategies such as providing sources, framing corrections in a non-confrontational manner, and choosing when to engage are critical. Educational psychologist Dr. Linda Elder suggests that fostering critical thinking and questioning skills can help create a more discerning audience that naturally scrutinizes the validity of information before accepting or sharing it.

One effective strategy is the "truth sandwich" approach, popularized by linguist George Lakoff. This method involves stating the truth, then the misinformation, and then the truth again. For example, if correcting a false claim about vaccine efficacy, one might say: "Vaccines have been proven safe and effective through rigorous scientific testing. Some have claimed that vaccines cause autism, but this is not true. Multiple large-scale studies have consistently shown no link between vaccines and autism."

Research shows that presenting corrections alongside evidence or using a respectful tone can reduce defensive reactions and encourage openness to new information. This approach not only increases the likelihood of the correction being accepted but also contributes to a more constructive online environment.

Dr. Leticia Bode and Dr. Emily Vraga have conducted several studies on correcting misinformation on social media. Their work suggests that corrections are most effective when they come from trusted sources and include links to credible evidence. They also found that corrections from algorithmic sources (like Facebook's fact-checking system) can be effective, especially when combined with social corrections.

Additionally, platforms are increasingly utilizing AI and machine learning tools to flag and review potentially false information before it spreads widely. For instance, before Elon Musk bought the platform and made changes that made the feature less impactful, Twitter's Birdwatch feature (now called Community Notes) allowed users to identify information in tweets they believed were misleading and write notes that provide context. These notes were then rated by other contributors for helpfulness, and notes deemed helpful by a wide range of contributors would be shown directly on tweets.

However, the human element remains indispensable, as context and nuance often escape purely algorithmic assessments. Balancing technological solutions with human judgment is key to effectively combating misinformation while maintaining the integrity of online discourse.

Segment 6: Psychological Impact of Being Corrected Online
Being on the receiving end of corrections can have a varied psychological impact, ranging from appreciation for learning something new to feelings of embarrassment or hostility, depending on the context and tone of the correction. Dr. Susan Fiske's work on social cognition illustrates how social identity and group belonging influence how corrections are received and internalized, impacting the individual's willingness to change their views or admit errors.

For content creators and everyday social media users alike, unsolicited corrections can lead to feelings of inadequacy and self-doubt. This can be particularly detrimental in professional or educational online spaces where confidence plays a key role in participation. The emotional responses to online interactions are often intensified due to the lack of face-to-face communication, which can exacerbate feelings of hostility and defensiveness, further polarizing discussions.

Research has shown that online corrections can also trigger feelings of shame, especially when delivered in a public forum. This shame response can lead to either withdrawal from online spaces or aggressive defensiveness, neither of which contributes to constructive dialogue.

It's also worth noting that the impact of online corrections can vary based on cultural contexts. In some cultures, direct corrections might be seen as helpful and straightforward, while in others, they might be perceived as rude or confrontational. This cultural dimension adds another layer of complexity to online interactions in our globalized digital world.

Segment 7: Beyond Annoyance - The Broader Impact of Online Arguments
While it may seem that online corrections are merely annoying, their impact extends beyond simple irritation. Arguments in comment sections can spiral into cyberbullying, create echo chambers, or even lead to offline harassment. This dynamic not only affects individual users but can also shape public opinion and influence behaviors on a broader scale.

The cumulative effect of these interactions can lead to a less inclusive online environment, where diverse voices are silenced or discouraged from participating. This homogenization of online spaces can limit the exchange of ideas and perspectives, ultimately impoverishing our digital discourse.

A study by the Pew Research Center found that 41% of Americans have personally experienced some form of online harassment. More alarmingly, 66% have witnessed others being targeted. These experiences can have lasting effects on individuals' mental health and willingness to engage online.

The broader societal impact of these online behaviors is significant. Echo chambers, reinforced by algorithmic content curation, can lead to increased polarization and the spread of extremist ideologies. One study found that exposure to opposing views on social media can actually increase political polarization, contrary to the common assumption that such exposure would reduce it.

Furthermore, the normalization of aggressive correction behaviors online can spill over into offline interactions, potentially eroding civil discourse in face-to-face settings. This highlights the need for digital literacy education that encompasses not just how to find information online, but also how to engage in respectful and constructive dialogue.

Conclusion:
As we wrap up today's episode, it's clear that the act of correcting others online, while sometimes necessary, requires mindfulness and responsibility. By understanding the psychological underpinnings of why people engage in these behaviors and recognizing their potential impacts, we can foster more constructive and respectful digital communication spaces.

In today's discussion, we've explored the intricate dance of correction and contradiction that characterizes much of our online discourse. From the motivations behind corrections to their effects on individuals and broader conversations, we've seen how these seemingly small interactions can have far-reaching consequences.

We've dug into the psychology of online corrections, examined the phenomena of reply guys and "well, actually" interactions, and discussed the complex relationship between corrections and misinformation. We've also explored strategies for effective corrections and considered the psychological impact of being on both sides of these interactions.

As we navigate our digital worlds, let's strive to be more conscious of how we engage with others, balancing the need for accuracy with empathy and respect. Remember, behind every screen is a real person, and our words have the power to shape not just conversations, but entire online communities.

Moving forward, it's crucial that we continue to study and understand these online behaviors. As our digital landscapes evolve, so too must our approaches to fostering healthy online discourse. This might involve developing new technologies to combat misinformation, creating more nuanced content moderation systems, or implementing widespread digital literacy programs.

Ultimately, creating a more positive online environment is a collective responsibility. By being mindful of our own behaviors, supporting those who are frequently targeted by online harassment, and advocating for systemic changes in how our online platforms operate, we can work towards a digital world that encourages learning, respectful debate, and the free exchange of ideas.
Before I close out for the day I want to remind you that we have a new Patreon at Patreon.com/psyberspace where you can share your thoughts on each episode, and that we’ve been nominated for an award! You can vote for us for Best Psychology Podcast at the link in the show notes between August 1st and October 1st this year.

Thank you for joining me for this PsyberSpace episode on the psychology of online corrections. I’m your host, Leslie Poston. Until next time, keep questioning, keep learning, and as always, stay curious.