Misinformation & Information

In the digital age, information and misinformation spreads rapidly on social media. CSMaP experts study how we consume and share news online and the impact of misinformation on our democracy.


  • Working Paper

    Social Media, Information, and Politics: Insights on Latinos in the U.S.

    Working Paper, November 2022

    View Article View abstract

    Social media is used by millions of Americans to acquire political news and information. Most of this research has focused on understanding the way social media consumption affects the political behavior and preferences of White Americans. Much less is known about Latinos’ political activity on social media, who are not only the largest racial/ethnic minority group in the U.S., but they also continue to exhibit diverse political preferences. Moreover, about 30% of Latinos rely primarily on Spanish-language news sources (Spanish-dominant Latinos) and another 30% are bilingual. Given that Spanish-language social media is not as heavily monitored for misinformation than its English-language counterparts (Valencia, 2021; Paul, 2021), Spanish-dominant Latinos who rely on social media for news may be more susceptible to political misinformation than those Latinos who are exposed to English-language social media. We address this contention by fielding an original study that sampled a large number of Latino and White respondents. Consistent with our expectations, Latinos who rely on Spanish-language social media are more likely to believe in election fraud than those who use both English and Spanish social media new sources. We also find that Latinos engage in more political activities on social media when compared to White Americans, particularly on their social media of choice, WhatsApp.

  • Working Paper

    Evaluating Expectations from Social and Behavioral Science about COVID-19 and Lessons for the Next Pandemic

    • Kai Ruggeri, 
    • Friederike Stock, 
    • S. Alexander Haslam, 
    • Valerio Capraro, 
    • Paulo S. Boggio, 
    • Naomi Ellemers, 
    • Aleksandra Cichocka, 
    • Karen M. Douglas, 
    • David G. Rand, 
    • Mina Cikara, 
    • Eli J. Finkel, 
    • Sander van der Linden, 
    • James N. Druckman, 
    • Michael J. A. Wohl, 
    • Richard E. Petty, 
    • Joshua A. Tucker
    • Ellen Peters, 
    • Azim Shariff, 
    • Michele Gelfand, 
    • Dominic J. Packer, 
    • Paul van Lange, 
    • Gordon Pennycook, 
    • Katherine Baicker, 
    • Alia J. Crum, 
    • Kim A. Weeden, 
    • Lucy E. Napper, 
    • Nassim Tabri, 
    • Jamil Zaki, 
    • Linda J. Skitka, 
    • Shinobu Kitayama, 
    • Dean Mobbs, 
    • Cass R. Sunstein, 
    • Matteo M. Galizzi, 
    • Katherine Milkman, 
    • Marija Petrović, 
    • Anna Louise Todsen, 
    • Ali Hajian, 
    • Sanne Verra, 
    • Vanessa Buehler, 
    • Maja Friedemann, 
    • Marlene Hecht, 
    • Rayyan Mobarak, 
    • Jolanda Jetten, 
    • Ralitsa Karakasheva, 
    • Markus R. Tünte, 
    • Siu Kit Yeung, 
    • R. Shayna Rosenbaum, 
    • Yuki Yamada, 
    • Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, 
    • Irina Soboleva, 
    • Lucía Macchia, 
    • Eugen Dimant, 
    • Sandra J. Geiger, 
    • Eike Kofi Buabang, 
    • Marna Landman, 
    • Žan Lep, 
    • Hannes Jarke, 
    • Tobias Wingen, 
    • Jana Berkessel, 
    • Silvana Mareva, 
    • Lucy McGill, 
    • Francesca Papa, 
    • Bojana Većkalov, 
    • Felice Tavera, 
    • Jack Andrews, 
    • Aslı Bursalıoğlu, 
    • Zorana Zupan, 
    • Lisa Wagner, 
    • Joaquin Navajas, 
    • Marek A. Vranka, 
    • Lindsay Novak, 
    • Kathleen Hudson, 
    • Paul Teas, 
    • Nikolay R. Rachev, 
    • Jay J. Van Bavel
    • Robb Willer

    Working Paper, October 2022

    View Article View abstract

    Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms.

    Date Posted

    Oct 10, 2022


View All Related Research

News & Views

View All Related News