Why people willingly send horror stories in instant messengers and how to distinguish fact from fiction

What are we talking about?

You've probably encountered strange messages with scary text. “HIV-contaminated syringe needles are thrown into sandboxes.” “Vaccines are designed to microchip people.” “Someone’s uncle, an FSB lieutenant colonel, told me to pack my emergency suitcase.” “Chocolate from a certain company causes children to mutate into biorobots.” “One boy decided to call the Queen of Spades, and no one saw him again.” Such messages are periodically distributed through community and parent chats, coming from mothers, grandfathers, and acquaintances. The recordings make some people chuckle ironically: how can you believe in such nonsense. Well, someone in a panic rushes to follow the instructions and, of course, pass on the information.

This phenomenon is not new. It’s just that with the advent of instant messengers and the Internet on every phone, it has become easier to disseminate information. Let's look at the example of the Saratov region. In March 2020, there, as throughout the country, a message was sent via instant messengers and social networks that at night

helicopters will spray over Saratov some kind of disinfectant. Therefore, you need to close the windows tightly and not leave the house until the morning. The news spread so widely that the authorities were forced to with official denial.

At the same time, few people remember that Saratov had already experienced something similar. In 2009, when not everyone had the Internet, but people were more or less covered by mobile communications, the city was already being frightened with fake “pollination.” Then two children who returned from the UK were diagnosed with swine flu. And the disease began to spread. And along with it comes the information that this is not the flu, but pneumonic plague, and therefore there will be reagents are sprayed. To prevent panic, on night X, government officials walked along the main pedestrian street of the city, showing that it was safe to be outside the house.

And in 2004, when not everyone had mobile phones, information about the incident at the Balakovo Nuclear Power Plant spread throughout the region. Then in city pharmacies sweep away the iodine, with the help of which the residents hoped minimize the consequences defeats. And several people were even poisoned by iodine-containing products.

A similar thing happened in the USSR, when there were legends about contaminated imported jeans and chewing gum. Yes, this happened before, it’s just that you had to send a messenger or carrier pigeon to spread alarming messages. This, of course, is more difficult technically, and therefore to sow mass panic it was more difficult.

And if people have always done this, then why? Let's figure it out.

Why do people send scary messages?

Because it's a social mechanism

Transferring information is normal human behavior. For example, more than a half The conversation of average people is gossip, that is, discussing others in their absence. Moreover, we are not talking about slander, these are precisely stories about those who do not participate in the conversation. And those talking can describe absent from both the negative and positive sides. Scientists suggest that this is part of an evolutionary mechanism. Monkeys, for example, share too different information to establish connections within their groups.

Information about danger is the king of gossip. After all, if it is true, then it will save everyone. That is, the distributor can simultaneously take care of his loved ones, and his authority in the human pack will definitely be strengthened due to this.

Because they don't trust institutions

Let's remember the coronavirus. People willingly spread fake news about urban pollination, killing vaccines, chips in vaccines - you can easily continue this series. The authorities of all countries, international organizations, and the media gave opposite information or refuted fakes. But many people still continued to believe in them “out of spite.” Because will all these organizations tell the truth? They pursue their own interests and do not care about people at all.

And in a fake there is always a link to authority. This is either a military wife, according to her husband, or a lieutenant colonel, or a doctor who is in the system and cannot tell the truth openly, but also tolerate lies, so they warn “from below.” It could also be a brother, a matchmaker, a friend, that is, close people who will not lie. Another thing is that it is not clear whose brother and doctor it is, but here we need to figure it out and make an effort. It's much easier to just forward the message.

The situation was aggravated by prosecution for fakes. For example, distributing dangerous information about coronavirus Sometimes fined. Which, on the one hand, forced the “informants” to switch to less monitored messengers, but on the other, looked suspicious. If these data are punished, maybe they are the truth that we should not know? And all this in conditions where sanctions are also provided for true, but incriminating materials.

So the logic is simple: institutions lie, but this information is not from them, perhaps it is the truth that needs to be disseminated.

Because they are passing the buck

Receiving frightening information, a person is left alone with it. How to analyze them? Is it true? Should we be afraid of what is written there and do what is indicated? What if there is truth there, and others need to be notified about it?

People don't forward horror stories because they unconditionally believe in them. This is a way to get rid of yourself responsibility: “I’ll send you a message, and you can figure out for yourself whether you can trust him and what to do.”

Because they are afraid

Something terrible impresses us more than something good. Because it makes evolutionary sense. If someone told an ancient man that the coconuts on the palm tree were ripe, it would be nice, of course, but it would not require an urgent response. And if armed representatives of another tribe are spotted near the camp, this is objectively more important information, because survival depends on it.

And modern people are not so different from their predecessors in terms of perception of information. There are frightening data much more chances be remembered and spread throughout a wide circle. People are more willing to share something terrible, not because they gullible or poorly educated, but because they are people.

How to know if a message should be scary

Emotions work faster than logic, because in case of danger you need to run, not think. But in the case of messages, there is time. Therefore, it makes sense to switch from emotional perception and think with a cool head. Answer yourself a few questions.

• Who is the original source? Even direct witnesses to an event are often mistaken in their testimony. If information is supposedly obtained from seventeenth hands, there is little trust in it in principle. But even if the grandmother says on her own behalf that there is a ripper in the neighboring forest, it is better to ask in more detail how she knows this and why she thinks so.
• How is the message written? Most often, fakes have one thing in common: panic and a persistent push to spread them quickly.
• What evidence is there? For example, if children cut themselves en masse blades in railings slides, there must be hospitalizations, statements to the police, some other obvious evidence that is difficult to hide.
• Is there any confirmation of this information in other sources? Other messages in instant messengers do not count.
• Who benefits from disseminating this data? Sometimes people post fake news because they are honestly mistaken. But often they have a purpose. Let's say stigmatize a group of people. Or fight with competitors whose products allegedly contain needles.

Why is it important not to forward fake messages?

You can, of course, take the path of shifting responsibility: send it, and then let people figure it out themselves. But such messages have big social consequences. At a minimum, the messages sow fear and panic, and in this state people are capable of anything. For example, go with a pitchfork to the one they suspected of being the maniac from the message. Although the constant anxiety itself is out of nowhere not useful.

Therefore, it is important not to participate in this chain. Of course, it is impossible to break it alone. But the more responsible a person is in checking and disseminating frightening messages, the fewer people will panic. We are not able to control everyone, but we can definitely control our actions.