Taking the Fight to Facebook: A Pilot of Science vs. Spin

Public health doesn’t just happen in hospitals or labs—it happens in the comment section.
At This Week in Public Health, we’re running a real-time experiment on Facebook to see whether evidence-based engagement can actually change how people talk about health online. Instead of arguing or correcting from a distance, we’re testing a structured set of conversations rooted in behavioral science and social psychology. Each reply draws on Robert Cialdini’s principles of persuasion—liking, reciprocity, social proof, authority, commitment, and scarcity—to build trust before sharing facts.

Why We’re Doing This

Disinformation thrives on division and emotion. Traditional fact-checking often fails because it treats persuasion as a data problem rather than a human one. Our hypothesis: if you meet people with empathy, curiosity, and respect, you can reopen the door to science.

Each comment we post is designed to de-escalate defensiveness, signal shared values, and model credible curiosity. Instead of “You’re wrong,” we try:

“Totally get where you’re coming from. There’s been so much conflicting info—it’s hard to trust anyone.”

From there, we add credible context or share accessible resources. We’re not chasing arguments—we’re testing whether tone and timing can move conversations back toward truth.

The Toolkit We’re Using

Our replies blend tone, intent, and psychology:

• Empathetic & Warm (Liking): “We’ve all been through a lot; most of us want the same thing—safe families and strong communities.”
• Calm & Credible (Authority): “Doctors at Mayo and Hopkins looked at the same data—same conclusion, no politics.”
• Neighborly & Hopeful (Social Proof): “In our county, people across political lines agreed to focus on what worked—testing, clean water, better outreach.”
• Generous & Grateful (Reciprocity): “Appreciate you asking instead of assuming—here’s something that helped me understand it better.”
• Determined & Consistent (Commitment): “If we care about protecting kids, we have to care about the data that keeps them safe.”

Every message has a purpose: to replace outrage with reflection, and to make trust contagious.

What We’re Measuring

We’re tracking engagement, sentiment, and the rate of civil replies vs. hostile ones. Success doesn’t mean everyone agrees—it means more people stay in the conversation long enough to hear evidence. If we can increase curiosity and reduce hostility by even a few percentage points, that’s progress worth learning from.

We Know This Might Fail — and That’s the Point

No one’s cracked the code for fighting health misinformation online. But doing nothing isn’t an option. We want to test, learn, and share what works—because the front lines of public health are increasingly digital.

Join Us on Facebook

Follow This Week in Public Health on Facebook to watch this experiment unfold. Comment, share, and help us make social media a place where science—and civility—can still win.