How a 'Sense of Justice' Is Actually the Biggest Engine for Spreading Fake News

Have you ever watched a soccer or baseball game and gotten angry at a questionable call by the referee? "That was a foul!" or "The ref is crazy!"—I'm sure you've shouted at the TV at least once.

Actually, this "reflexive anger" is surprisingly similar to the mechanism by which fake news spreads on social media.

In this article, from the perspective of a certified public psychologist, I would like to use the metaphor of sports' "VAR (Video Assistant Referee)" to consider why we believe in misinformation and how we can maintain a healthy relationship with information.

What happens in the brain of a supporter shouting, "That's a bad call!"

First, let's imagine something.

It's the final moments of an important game for the team you support. A player on your team collides with an opponent and falls in the penalty area, but the referee rules no foul. The stadium erupts in angry shouts.

What is happening in the supporter's mind at this moment? In psychology, it is said that human thinking has two systems. These are the famous "fast thinking (System 1)" and "slow thinking (System 2)" proposed by Daniel Kahneman. System 1 is intuitive, driven by emotion, and reacts almost automatically. On the other hand, System 2 is a logical thought circuit for careful analysis.fast thinking (System 1)andslow thinking (System 2). System 1 is intuitive, driven by emotion, and reacts almost automatically. On the other hand, System 2 is a logical thought circuit for careful analysis.

In the brain of a supporter shouting "That's a bad call!" in the stadium, System 1 is in a state of complete runaway. Emotions run ahead before calmly reviewing the replay footage. This is exactly the same thing that happens on social media.

In the brain of a supporter shouting "That's a bad call!" in the stadium, System 1 is in a state of complete runaway. Emotions run ahead before calmly reviewing the replay footage. This is exactly the same thing that happens on social media.

The social media space is a "giant stadium"

Social media is like a giant stadium where tens or hundreds of thousands of people are watching at the same time. A "questionable call" in the form of "shocking news" is thrown into it.

It is known that fake news that incites anger or fear spreads much faster and wider than calm and accurate reporting. Why? Because when humans are strongly stimulated by emotion, they press the "share" button with System 1 (intuitive reaction) before System 2 (calm analysis) can work.

And what's troublesome is the existence of a psychological tendency called "confirmation bias."confirmation bias".

You defend a foul by your favorite team as "just a trip," while strictly condemning a foul by the opposing team as "clearly intentional." Soccer fans might recognize this "double standard."

This is exactly what confirmation bias is. You unconditionally accept information that matches the beliefs and values you already hold, and unconsciously exclude information that does not. Creators of fake news skillfully exploit this psychological weakness in humans. By providing a "story of righteous indignation"—such as "Your anger is justified" or "I knew they were the bad ones"—they induce voluntary sharing.

To this is added "motivated reasoning." People gather only convenient evidence to believe what they "want to believe." It's that feeling where you can think of 10 reasons why the team you support will win, but not a single reason why they might lose.motivated reasoning" also joins in. People gather only convenient evidence to believe what they "want to believe." It's that feeling where you can think of 10 reasons why the team you support will win, but not a single reason why they might lose.

Fact-checking in the name of VAR

Now, in the world of sports, "VAR (Video Assistant Referee)" has been introduced to correct this "emotional rush." It is a mechanism to re-examine important moments during a game using video and make accurate judgments based on facts.VAR (Video Assistant Referee)has been introduced to correct this "emotional rush." It is a mechanism to re-examine important moments during a game using video and make accurate judgments based on facts.

VAR in the world of information—that is "fact-checking."fact-checking".

Fact-checking is the practice of objectively verifying the truth of discourses or information already circulating in the world based on evidence. The important point is that it is about "verifying facts," not "judging the correctness of opinions."

This distinction is surprisingly easy to overlook. A good referee makes a call based on 'the player is being tripped' (objective fact), not 'that player is in pain' (subjective opinion). Fact-checking is the same; it only targets 'facts' that can be objectively proven. Value judgments like 'that policy is right/wrong' are outside the scope of fact-checking.

As for specific verification tools, there is reverse image search (such as Google Lens or TinEye) to investigate the source of images and videos. It is surprisingly common for 'shocking footage' circulating on social media to actually be repurposed footage from a completely different incident years ago. Seeing through this is, in a sense, the job of a VAR referee in the information space.

Showing 'why that decision was made'

However, just because VAR has been introduced does not mean all supporters will be convinced. If the reason 'why that decision was made' remains a black box, it will only increase distrust.

The exact same thing can be said for the world of information.

Even if media outlets or fact-checking organizations announce only the conclusion that 'this information is a hoax,' people will not be easily convinced. In fact, it can even invite backlash, with people saying, 'They are being condescending and pushing their views on us again.'

What is truly necessary to build trust is transparency.

The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) code of principles also strictly stipulates standards and transparency of sources, and standards and transparency of verification methods. In other words, disclosing what public data (primary information) was used, what process was used to verify it, and why that conclusion was reached, in a form that anyone can track and verify. This is how to 'build trust' in the modern age.

In terms of soccer's VAR, it means showing the footage that served as the basis for the decision on the stadium screen, sharing the material for judgment with the spectators as well. Only with that transparency does a sense of conviction—'well, I suppose that might be true'—emerge.

In modern journalism, it is said that 'conveying the conclusion' and 'making the process transparent' are equally important. I strongly empathize with this way of thinking. In the medical world as well, not just conveying the 'conclusion' of a treatment plan, but carefully sharing the process of 'why this treatment was chosen' becomes the foundation for a relationship of trust with the patient.

Three things we can do starting today

For those who have read this far and thought, 'So what should I actually do?', I would like to propose three habits.

The first is to take a breath when your emotions are stirred. Do not immediately share news that makes you feel angry or shocked. I call this a VAR review in your heart. When your System 1 is about to run wild, tell yourself, 'Let me just check the footage.' A mere three-second 'pause' will dramatically change the quality of the information you share.

The second is to check the source of the information. Where is the primary source of that information? Who is sending it, when, and on what grounds? Even without using tools like reverse image search, just being conscious of 'where did this information originate?' will dramatically improve your information literacy.

And the third is to be aware of your own confirmation bias. This is the most difficult, but also the most important. 'Am I believing this because I want to believe it?' 'Am I also looking at information from the opposing side?' Just having the habit of asking yourself these questions will completely change how you engage with information.

In closing

We are all 'supporters' in the information space. We have teams we root for, stories we want to believe, and justice we want to protect. There is nothing wrong with that in itself.

However, being a passionate supporter and having calm judgment are by no means contradictory. While cheering at the top of your lungs in the stadium, you still accept the VAR decision. We should be able to become such mature 'spectators of information'.

There is no need to deny your emotions. Anger, sadness, and a sense of justice are all important human emotions. However, before you turn those emotions into an 'engine for spreading,' stop for a moment. I believe that just by doing that, your relationship with social media will become much healthier.

Thank you very much for staying with me until the end. I would be happy if today's article serves as an opportunity for you to think about your next steps starting tomorrow.

#FakeNews #InformationLiteracy #FactCheck #CognitiveBias #CertifiedPublicPsychologist