The Psychology of State-Sponsored Disinformation Campaigns and Implications for Public Diplomacy

The Psychology of State-Sponsored Disinformation Campaigns and Implications for Public Diplomacy

In recent years, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns have become a pervasive issue affecting societies worldwide. These campaigns often rely on activating polarized social identities and exploiting grievances to spread false or misleading information. The success of these campaigns can be attributed to various psychological mechanisms, including motivated reasoning and affective polarization. Motivated reasoning refers to the tendency to selectively expose oneself to information that aligns with pre-existing beliefs and to resist information that contradicts those beliefs. Affective polarization, on the other hand, refers to the increased negative emotions towards out-groups, which can be manipulated to promote disinformation.

Identity-grievance campaigns capitalize on these psychological mechanisms to persuade, reinforce polarization, and resist correction. They target closely held social identities, such as political, ethnic, racial, and religious identities, and provoke negative emotional responses. People are often inclined to protect their self- and social identity by resisting corrective messages and derogating their sources. To counter these campaigns, one strategy is to employ identity-affirmation messages that positively affirm the identity or values of the audience while providing corrective information. Another strategy is to reduce affective polarization between groups by priming a common in-group identity, such as national identity. By doing so, negative emotions towards out-groups can be reduced, making individuals less vulnerable to disinformation.

Additionally, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns have increasingly relied on a strategy called "information gaslighting." This strategy involves the rapid proliferation of false or misleading information through social media platforms to sow uncertainty among its targets. The wide availability of false information makes it difficult for audiences to discern truth from fiction, leading to a sense of loss of control over the information environment. Individuals with low self-esteem, experiencing depression or anxiety, or who make incorrect attributions regarding their failure are particularly vulnerable to this form of informational learned helplessness.

To counter information gaslighting, public diplomacy campaigns should focus on providing self-affirmation to audiences on their ability to discern accurate from inaccurate information. Building self-confidence among targeted populations that they have the skills to tell truth from fiction can help counter the effects of ILH. Another strategy is to improve information literacy through education programs. These programs enhance audiences' ability to critically evaluate information, reducing their susceptibility to disinformation.

Moreover, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns often rely on the decline of confidence in credible media organizations, leading audiences to rely on alternative sources of information. Frequent exposure to disinformation from low-credible sources increases its accessibility and familiarity in memory, making it difficult to distinguish truth from fiction. To counter this, public diplomacy campaigns can focus on repeated exposure to corrective information that supplants the disinformation in the minds of targets. Clear and easily digestible formats can increase information fluency and accessibility, reducing reactance and increasing the likelihood of corrective information being accepted.

Furthermore, promoting more careful judgment and deliberation by audiences can also reduce their susceptibility to disinformation. Increasing audiences' motivation to engage in analytical thinking and skepticism towards low-credible news sources can help mitigate the effects of cognitive biases. News media literacy training and education can also enhance audiences' ability to evaluate the quality and veracity of news content.

In the context of European diplomacy, the European External Action Service (EEAS) has been at the forefront of countering digital disinformation. The EEAS created a special unit, the East StratCom Task Force, to respond to Russian disinformation. This task force transformed practices of diplomacy by integrating strategic communication and digital technologies into EU diplomacy. They developed practices such as myth-busting and positive narrative projection to counter disinformation and promote the EU's image. These practices were routinized and became accepted as part of EEAS diplomacy.

The transformation in practices of diplomacy brought about by efforts to counter digital disinformation reflects changes in agency, material practices, and identified partners or peoples on the receiving end. These changes involve the inclusion of non-traditional actors in diplomacy, the adoption of new material practices in communication, and the recognition of domestic audiences as key stakeholders in EU diplomacy.

Overall, understanding the psychology behind state-sponsored disinformation campaigns is crucial for developing effective strategies to counter them. By leveraging insights from motivated reasoning, affective polarization, and information processing biases, public diplomacy campaigns can mitigate the impact of disinformation and promote more informed and critical consumption of information.

In conclusion, three actionable advice to counter state-sponsored disinformation campaigns are:

1. Employ identity-affirmation messages that positively affirm the identity or values of the audience while providing corrective information.
2. Focus on information discernment education to improve audiences' information literacy and critical evaluation skills.
3. Increase audiences' motivation for analytical thinking and skepticism towards low-credible news sources to promote more careful judgment and deliberation.

By implementing these strategies, public diplomacy campaigns can effectively counter state-sponsored disinformation and contribute to a more informed and resilient society.