On Tuesday, Oct. 28, the University of Connecticut Humanities Institute hosted a Q&A-style panel entitled “The Spread of Misinformation and the Rise of Social Media Advocacy” in conjunction with UConn Student Activities.
The panel featured three experts whose research and professional experience offered a multidisciplinary look at misinformation in the digital age: Dr. Sherry Pagoto, Professor Amanda J. Crawford and Dr. Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch.
Dr. Pagoto is a licensed clinical psychologist, professor and social media researcher whose work focuses on leveraging technology in the development and delivery of behavioral interventions targeting diet, physical activity and cancer prevention.
She connected psychological factors to the way misinformation spreads online, explaining that posts provoking emotions like shock, anger or fear often generate more engagement — and thus more visibility — as opposed to posts conveying factual information. She also noted that many professionals lack digital literacy skills to effectively share credible information on social platforms and build an audience.
Professor Crawford is a political reporter and literary journalist whose research areas include journalism ethics, misinformation, conspiracy theories and the role of journalists in a democracy.
She examined the media’s role in amplifying misinformation. She discussed journalistic amplification — when reporters unintentionally spread falsehoods while trying to debunk them — as a major concern. Crawford also emphasized that while emotional storytelling can increase engagement, journalists must remain grounded in truth and integrity.
Dr. Oeldorf-Hirsch, an associate professor in UConn’s Department of Communication, studies how people use social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X, formerly known as Twitter, to communicate news, health and identity.
She explored how social media algorithms and influencers shape users’ perceptions of credibility. She highlighted the growing influence of nano-influencers — users with smaller but more trusted followings — in digital marketing. Oeldorf-Hirsch noted the dilemma platforms face: fostering critical thinking could reduce engagement, yet prioritizing entertainment often perpetuates misinformation.
Across their disciplines, the panelists agreed that misinformation thrives because users gravitate toward content that confirms their existing beliefs. They stressed that social media “activism” often begins and ends with engagement — liking, sharing, or commenting — but true advocacy requires tangible, real-world action. Overall, they encouraged all attendees to take a step back from social media in general.
The panel was organized by Norah Forte, a graduate assistant of Civic Engagement & Dialogues at the Neag School of Education.
Forte said this event was organized because “misinformation has become such a defining challenge of our digital age. We wanted to create a space where students and community members could unpack how misinformation spreads and how advocacy can still thrive responsibly online.”
She added that she selected panelists “who approach the topic from different but complementary lenses, through communication, journalism, and psychology.” Her ultimate goal was to reframe misinformation as not just a technological issue, but also a human and societal one.
“Each panelist brought insight into how people process information, how media structures amplify or limit truth and how individuals can think critically about what they share,” Forte said.
Additionally, Forte hopes that attendees left the event with recognition that “everyone plays a role in shaping the online information environment. Even small actions, like fact checking or slowing down before sharing can make a difference. Advocacy is most powerful when it’s informed, intentional and rooted in truth.”
The panel was thoughtfully structured, with Forte posing targeted and relevant questions to each expert. Her prompts referenced interesting real-world cases of misinformation, such as the viral conspiracy theories claiming COVID-19 vaccines contained microchips. The questions were original, well-researched and engaging.
“I thought it was really interesting and informative,” said Steve Baker, a third-semester mechanical engineering student. He added that the discussion underscored the importance of communication accuracy and media literacy in technical fields like engineering where accuracy is so crucial.
Though time allowed for only one audience question, the panel was deeply engaging and thought-provoking, and left attendees with much to consider by the time it concluded.