Skip to main content
    Path to Science

    Thinking Dictionary

    Misinformation vs disinformation

    What it is

    False information comes in different kinds. One widely used framework, written for the Council of Europe, sorts it by intent:¹

    • Misinformation is false information shared by people who don't mean to cause harm. Usually they believe it. Think of a friend forwarding a health tip that turns out to be wrong.
    • Disinformation is false information shared deliberately, to deceive or cause harm.
    • Malinformation is genuine information used to cause harm, such as leaking someone's private messages.

    The authors of the framework avoid the term "fake news."

    The same false claim can be both. It may be disinformation when someone creates it on purpose, and misinformation when your aunt shares it because she believes it. You often can't know the intent of the person who shared a post. So it usually makes sense to respond to the claim itself, and to treat the people sharing it fairly.

    Why it matters

    False news can travel further and faster than the truth. A study of about 126,000 news stories shared on Twitter between 2006 and 2017 found that stories checked and found false spread farther, faster, deeper, and more widely than true ones. The effect was strongest for political news. The false stories also tended to be more novel, or surprising.²

    You may hear that automated accounts, called bots, are mainly to blame for this spread. The sources used for this entry don't settle that question either way, so this entry makes no claim about it.

    Why people fall for it

    A common view is that people believe false news mainly because it fits their politics. One set of studies with nearly 3,500 people suggests something else matters a lot. People who scored higher on a short test of careful, reflective thinking were better at telling fake headlines from real ones, even when the fake ones matched their own politics.³ The test included puzzles like the bat-and-ball problem in the Fast and slow thinking entry. In short, not stopping to think may matter more than taking sides.

    What helps

    • Prebunking. Instead of correcting false claims after people have seen them, you can teach people the tricks in advance. These include emotional language, false either-or choices, and blaming a scapegoat. In six randomized studies, short videos about these tricks improved people's ability to spot them. A field study on YouTube with more than 22,000 people showed similar results.⁴
    • A wider toolbox. A 2024 review listed several approaches with evidence behind them, including prebunking and lateral reading.⁵ The Lateral reading entry explains how to check who is behind a claim.

    In everyday life

    • The forwarded message. A relative shares a wild health claim. They probably believe it. Respond to the claim kindly, and with a good source.
    • The outrage post. A post makes you furious or amazed. Strong emotion is a common sign of manipulation. Pause before sharing.
    • True but misleading. A real photo with a false caption, or a true fact taken out of context, can mislead as much as an outright lie.

    The common trap

    The first trap is assuming everyone who shares a falsehood is lying. Most people who share false claims probably believe them.

    The second trap is thinking "only foolish people fall for it." Surprising, emotional content works on everyone.

    The third trap is thinking misinformation is only outright lies. True facts in a misleading frame can deceive too.

    Some ways out:

    • Pause. If a post triggers a strong feeling, slow down before sharing.
    • Check sideways. See what other sources say about the claim and who is behind it.
    • Name the trick. Is the post using emotional language, a false either-or choice, or a scapegoat?

    Try it

    The next time a surprising post makes you angry or amazed, stop before sharing it. Ask yourself:

    1. Is this a claim that could be checked?
    2. What do other sources say about it?
    3. Who benefits if I believe it?
    4. If it's false, is it more likely an honest mistake or a deliberate push?

    Then see whether it uses any of the manipulation tricks above.

    Related concepts

    Lateral reading · Credible sources · Facts vs values · Fast and slow thinking · Peer review · Cognitive shortcuts · Cherry-picking · Motivated reasoning

    Sources

    1. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making (Council of Europe report DGI(2017)09). Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/Report-D/09000016807bf5f6

    2. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

    3. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011

    4. Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), eabo6254. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254

    5. Kozyreva, A., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Hertwig, R., et al. (2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01881-0