The Anatomy of Election Misinformation: How Sensemaking Goes Awry
As the 2024 US presidential election looms, the specter of misinformation and its potential to disrupt the democratic process once again takes center stage. A recent incident in Montana, where Kamala Harris was briefly omitted from overseas ballots due to a clerical error, highlights the vulnerability of elections to the rapid spread of false narratives. While the issue was swiftly rectified, the incident ignited accusations of intentional sabotage, demonstrating how seemingly innocuous errors can be weaponized in an environment of distrust. This incident underscores the crucial need to understand the underlying mechanisms that fuel the spread of election misinformation.
The Montana incident exemplifies a recurring pattern: individuals predisposed to distrust the electoral system often interpret administrative errors or ambiguities as evidence of malicious intent. This skewed perception is driven by pre-existing "frames," or mental models, that shape how individuals process information. These frames, often reinforced by political rhetoric and social media echo chambers, can lead to misinterpretations of genuine events, transforming them into fuel for misinformation. The danger lies not necessarily in the factual inaccuracies themselves, but in the faulty interpretive lenses through which these facts are perceived.
Researchers at the University of Washington, drawing on decades of research into rumors and misinformation, offer valuable insights into this phenomenon. They argue that the term "misinformation" itself might be a misnomer, suggesting a problem of simply "bad facts." Instead, they emphasize the importance of understanding the "sensemaking" process, whereby individuals interpret and assign meaning to the information they encounter. This sensemaking process, influenced by individual biases, social dynamics, and the information environment, can lead to the creation and propagation of rumors, even when based on kernels of truth.
The traditional understanding of rumors, as unverified information circulating through informal channels, provides a useful framework for analyzing online falsehoods. While some rumors may eventually prove true, their unverified nature makes them potent vectors of misinformation. Moreover, rumors often reveal underlying anxieties and concerns within a community, offering a window into the prevailing social and political climate. In the context of elections, these anxieties can be exploited by malicious actors seeking to sow distrust and undermine faith in the electoral process.
The interplay between "evidence" – the information individuals encounter – and "frames" – the mental structures through which they interpret that information – is central to the sensemaking process. When faced with new information, individuals select a frame from their mental repertoire that they believe best fits the situation. This frame then influences which pieces of evidence they prioritize and which they dismiss, shaping their overall interpretation of events. The problem arises when individuals apply the wrong frame, leading to misinterpretations and the generation of false rumors. Disinformation campaigns often exploit this vulnerability by intentionally manipulating the sensemaking process, either by introducing fabricated evidence or by distorting the frames through which individuals interpret legitimate information.
The 2020 US presidential election provides a stark example of this dynamic. The "Sharpiegate" incident in Arizona, where rumors circulated that the use of Sharpie pens would invalidate ballots, illustrates how a pre-existing frame of a "rigged election" can distort the interpretation of an innocuous event. Voters, primed by pre-election rhetoric about electoral fraud, interpreted the bleed-through from Sharpie pens as evidence of a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise them. This misinterpretation, amplified by social media and political figures, fueled a widespread rumor that ultimately contributed to a broader narrative of election illegitimacy.
Social media platforms, with their algorithms designed to maximize engagement, play a significant role in exacerbating the spread of misinformation. These platforms have inadvertently empowered a new generation of "newsbrokering influencers" who often prioritize attention-grabbing content over factual accuracy. The incentive structure of social media rewards content that resonates with pre-existing frames, creating a feedback loop that reinforces and amplifies misinformation. A recent example involved a selectively edited video purporting to show undocumented immigrants planning to vote illegally, which rapidly gained traction online after being amplified by influential accounts. This video tapped into prevailing anxieties about immigration and election integrity, demonstrating how existing frames can be exploited to disseminate false narratives.
As the 2024 election approaches, concerns about the proliferation of election-related misinformation are intensifying. The rise of self-proclaimed "election integrity" organizations, often operating under the assumption of a rigged election, further complicates the landscape. These organizations, by encouraging their volunteers to scrutinize the electoral process through a distorted lens, risk generating a flood of misinterpretations and false claims. This organized effort to find and amplify evidence supporting a pre-determined narrative poses a significant threat to the integrity of the election.
Understanding the dynamics of collective sensemaking is crucial for mitigating the impact of misinformation. Recognizing that individuals may be acting on genuine, albeit misguided, interpretations of events can foster empathy and facilitate more productive dialogue. Simultaneously, it is essential to expose the deliberate manipulation of the sensemaking process by malicious actors. By shedding light on these processes, researchers, journalists, election officials, and the public can better identify and address misinformation, safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process. The challenge lies not just in debunking false claims but in fostering a more nuanced understanding of how individuals make sense of the world and how that sensemaking process can be manipulated to undermine trust in democratic institutions.