Spread Mechanism
Accuracy-responsive vs Identity/moral: a framework for matching interventions to the way misinformation travels.
Accuracy-responsive spread
Content spreads because it fills an information gap. Readers believe it, or are unsure, and pass it on as if it were useful knowledge. Corrections, source cues and prebunks tend to work here because the audience is still reasoning about whether the claim is true.
- Audience asks: “Is this true?”
- Responsive to fact-checks, expert sourcing and uncertainty framing.
- Best interventions: prebunking, inoculation, credible source labels.
Identity / moral spread
Content spreads because it signals who we are and what we stand against. The claim is emotionally charged and bound up with group membership, values or moral outrage. Accuracy corrections often backfire because the audience is performing identity, not evaluating evidence.
- Audience asks: “Whose side am I on?”
- Driven by outrage, moral disgust and in-group signalling.
- Best interventions: values-aligned reframing, trusted in-group voices, empathy-first narratives.
Why this matters for UTA
DirectionalA single dashboard can mislead if it treats every false claim the same way. Vaccine misinformation, for example, is often identity-bound; AMR misinformation can be curiosity-driven and accuracy-responsive. Choosing the wrong response wastes resources and can deepen polarisation.
Accuracy-responsive topics
Cancer treatment, AMR, chronic disease self-management, drugs/substances.
Identity/moral topics
Vaccines, mental health, nutrition, reproductive health.
Operational rule of thumb
If the dominant emotion is outrage, lead with values, not facts. If it is fear or curiosity, lead with credible, source-backed clarity.
Category mapping
Source-BackedMechanism labels are directional judgments based on the evidence cited in Sources & Evidence. They should be updated as UTA-specific research replaces third-party estimates.
Source
McLoughlin, K. L., Brady, W. J., Goolsbee, A., Kaiser, B., Klonick, K., & Crockett, M. J. (2024). Misinformation exploits outrage to spread online. Science, 386(6725), 991–996. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl2829