It has been suggested that psychology’s role in this post-truth era should be to help people differentiate between beliefs and facts by studying and developing the meta-cognitive skills necessary for searching, evaluating, and applying information. This would entail developing practical tools to foster critical thinking and reflexivity and exploring ways to make psychological information accessible to non-expert audiences without compromising scientific standards while acknowledging the evolving nature of information dissemination in the digital age.

Facts on False Beliefs

However, research has shown that false beliefs can become even more entrenched when individuals are presented with strong evidence to the contrary. This phenomenon, known as the backfire effect, can be mitigated by adopting an exploratory approach and utilizing credible and supportive sources of information that are perceived as such by the receiver. Nevertheless, such an approach, although necessary, seems insufficient to combat disinformation and dispel false beliefs, especially at the societal level.

More than personal misconceptions, false beliefs have significant implications for our thinking and behavior. They can jeopardize not only our well-being but also that of others, as is the case with the alarming rise of vaccine hesitancy, which the World Health Organization declared a top global health threat in 2019—a stark reminder of the societal impact of false beliefs. Evidence-based strategies for addressing vaccine hesitancy include communication and behavioral techniques, such as nudges.

Nudging

A nudge is a “function of any attempt at influencing people’s judgment, choice, or behavior in a predictable way that is motivated by cognitive boundaries, biases, routines, and habits in decision-making that pose barriers for people to perform rationally in their own self-declared interests, and which works by using those boundaries, biases, routines, and habits as integral parts of that attempt.” An example of a nudge is to make the option of being an organ donor the default option when the question is posed so people only have to do an action if they want to choose not to be one.

Nudging increases the likelihood that an individual or group will make a particular choice or behave in a certain way by modifying the environment so that automatic cognitive processes are triggered in favor of the desired outcome. This strategy contrasts with other methods for behavior change, such as education, legislation, or enforcement, and it diverges from the call for devising practical tools that foster reflective skills. Instead, it applies behavioral science research to develop methods that produce behavioral change in ways that bypass our reasoning processes, which has raised concerns about its potential threat to autonomy.

Maintaining Personal Autonomy

Proponents of nudging argue that the same bypassing processes will work to our detriment if we do not nudge ourselves in our interests. These proponents flip the argument by saying that refusing to nudge threatens our autonomy by not giving us good reasons for action. They note that if nudges are moderated by reason (i.e., nudges that appeal to reason), individuals can continue to act as responsible agents. Thus, the essential ethical pillar of autonomy remains intact.

Recent experimental evidence contributed to this controversial debate by suggesting that nudging against consent is effective but lowers welfare and that the good news is that the effectiveness of nudges is not reduced when they are delivered transparently.  However, transparent nudging may undermine human autonomy in a different way, as a minority may oppose being nudged and feel manipulated, even if they are aware of what is happening. Others take a step further and propose an approach to maintaining autonomy that is not reducible to transparency: individuals can be asked to consent in advance to being nudged, that is, nudging with preauthorization.

Fostering Self-Reflection

Let’s not forget the Tuskegee Study and other instances in which the medical system broke the trust of a minoritized population by conducting unethical studies for scientific advancement. Recent studies on this topic highlight the effect of peripheral trauma on population health, underlining the urgent need for population health trauma-informed approaches to combat the anti-vax movement. Along these lines, the crucial importance of restoring trust cannot be overstated, as is the ongoing debate on techniques that operate without transparency.

As we brace ourselves to tackle the new surge of vaccine hesitancy, we must foster self-reflection and critical thinking to ponder the ethical dimensions of existing and potential new strategies. This, too, should enable us to remain steadfast in our principles at a time when promoting the truth is not necessarily among the values defended by some in power. Trust and truth go hand in hand.