Bypassing Instead of Correcting Misinformation & False Beliefs

Breaking the Grip of Scam False Beliefs & Myths: How “Bypassing” Beats Head-On Corrections About Misinformation, Urban Legends, and Denial

Primary Category: Psychology of Scams & Recovery

Author:
•  Tim McGuinness, Ph.D., DFin, MCPO, MAnth – Anthropologist, Scientist, Polymath, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.

Author Biographies Below

 

About This Article

This study-centered approach to Bypassing Instead of Correcting Misinformation & False Beliefs highlights a humane path for loosening false beliefs about scams without triggering shame or argument. Instead of attacking myths directly, bypassing offers a simple, accurate model that answers the same question and guides action. This strategy lowers defensiveness, protects identity, and keeps attention on practical steps such as cutting contact, securing accounts, and verifying claims through independent channels. Advocates can pair short scripts with recognizable cues to build safer habits, while corrections still serve when immediate harm looms. Families and providers gain a shared language that normalizes vulnerability, explains criminal tactics, and directs clear next moves. When communities adopt bypassing as routine practice, help-seeking rises, prevention improves, and recovery becomes steadier. The goal remains consistent across settings: replace blame with workable models, measure progress by protective behavior, and give people a face-saving route from rigid stories to reality-based choices that protect money, trust, and health.

Note: This article is intended for informational purposes and does not replace professional medical advice. If you are experiencing distress, please consult a qualified mental health professional.

Breaking the Grip of Scam False Beliefs & Myths: How “Bypassing” Beats Head-On Corrections About Misinformation, Urban Legends, and Denial

This article is primarily intended for Advocates and the Family of Scam Victims. However, it may prove useful to anyone confronted by this situation.

Author’s Note

Misinformation and false stories take root because they meet human needs. They offer certainty, identity, and a feeling of control when life feels unstable. The study “Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes” matters because it maps out a practical way to loosen those roots without shaming people or hardening their defenses. Instead of arguing with a claim head-on, the bypass approach invites a person to pick up a clearer, simpler model that explains the same topic and guides action. It reduces reactance, calms identity threat, and keeps attention on what helps rather than on what hurts. The findings show that people update beliefs more readily when the new frame feels usable, repeatable, and emotionally safer. That shift holds value across settings where rumors, urban legends, and half-truths do harm. Families, educators, advocates, and public agencies can use these insights to design messages that protect health, money, and trust. A steady bypass that offers a better explanation works with human psychology instead of against it. It gives people a path out of rigid stories and toward choices that match reality.

Tim McGuinness, Ph.D.

Breaking the Grip

Scam victims and the advocates who support them confront more than financial losses. They face a dense thicket of false beliefs and urban legends about scams, scammers, and victims. These stories spread fast, linger in memory, and resist change. Research on misinformation offers a practical path forward. A newer strategy called bypassing shows promise because it builds a correct understanding before false ideas take root, instead of only arguing with them after the fact. When communities use bypassing alongside targeted corrections, shame drops, help-seeking rises, and prevention improves. 

The Problem: Scam Myths & Denial That Will Not Budge

Misinformation is sticky. People often remember sensational claims more clearly than quiet facts. Even when a rumor gets corrected, traces of the false claim persist and shape later decisions. That pattern appears in scam culture daily. Common examples include the belief that only careless people get scammed, that real banks will always detect fraud in time, or that video calls always prove an identity. These claims feel simple and comforting. They also cause harm. Victims stay silent, families delay reporting, and criminals gain time to move money. Prior reviews show that straightforward retractions rarely erase the influence of a false claim. They help, but they do not fully neutralize it. 

What ‘Bypassing’ Means

Bypassing is a nonconfrontational influence strategy. Instead of arguing directly with a false statement, the communicator supplies an alternative mental model that renders the myth unnecessary. The audience learns a simple, accurate script that answers the same question the myth tried to answer. In practice, bypassing changes what people think about first. When the right explanation becomes the default, the wrong one finds less room to operate. Early reports in the misinformation literature describe bypassing as a promising way to reduce defensiveness and improve acceptance of accurate information. 

How Bypassing Differs From Correction

Correction asks people to revise a claim they have already heard. Bypassing asks them to adopt a clear, working model before myths set in. Correction often uses phrases like “that is not true because.” Bypassing uses phrases like “here is how this actually works.” The difference matters because corrections can trigger argument, ego protection, or group identity concerns. Bypassing reduces those triggers by shifting attention to practical steps, short checklists, and concrete cues.

Why Scam Communities Benefit From Bypassing

Victims and families need usable guidance under stress. Bypassing provides that guidance without making anyone defend past choices. Advocates can teach short, repeatable rules that replace urban legends. Over time, those rules become community habits. When myths appear, people already carry a better script and move on.

Four Core Myths to Replace

The following sections show how bypassing works on four stubborn beliefs. Each example includes a practical model that survivors and advocates can teach and use.

Note that there are any number of myths and urban legends that some victims believe; these are just four examples.

Myth 1: “Smart people do not get scammed”

This belief fuels shame and silence. It implies that intelligence or education prevents manipulation. It also contradicts hard experience.

Bypass with a model of human vulnerability.
Teach that scams exploit normal brain shortcuts, attachment wiring, and stress responses. Everyone uses mental rules of thumb to save time. Criminals design scripts to trigger those rules. When contact is constant, hormones amplify attachment and urgency. Anyone can be pulled off balance in those conditions. State this calmly and without drama. Then move to steps that restore control.

Practical approach:
“Scams target human wiring. Normalize the shock. Close the contact channel. Move money protections first. Seek support early.”

This approach bypasses the insult and directs action. It turns a blame frame into a safety frame.

Myth 2: “A quick video call proves identity”

Criminals now use stolen video loops, low-bandwidth excuses, and manipulated backgrounds to fake their presence. A short call feels reassuring, but it does not confirm who sits on the other side.

Bypass with a layered verification model.
Replace one proof with three small checks. Require a live interaction that includes a unique physical gesture, a nonpublic fact confirmed through an independent directory, and a call-back to a published number. If any check fails, end contact.

Practical approach:
“Use three checks. Live gesture on camera. Independent fact from a trusted directory. Call back using a published number. One failure ends the call.”

A community that learns this model stops relying on a single fragile test.

Myth 3: “The bank will block a bad transfer in time”

Banks can help, but money movement is fast. Once a wire clears or crypto leaves a wallet, recovery drops sharply.

Bypass with a payment hygiene model.
Teach that irreversible methods require out-of-band confirmation before use. Out-of-band means a second channel that the criminal does not control. A phone call to a known number, not a link in a message. Insist on a real face-to-face check for large transfers. And a hold period and dual authorization for business accounts.

Practical approach:
“Treat wires, crypto, and gift cards as high risk. Confirm instructions with a second channel. Use dual approvals for business. If a mistake occurs, call the bank fraud line within minutes and request a recall.”

The model sets behavior before risk peaks.

Myth 4: “Only fools fall for ‘pig butchering’”

Long-con investment frauds recruit smart and careful people, often through weeks of patient rapport. They combine attention, pseudo-expertise, and staged platform dashboards are used to create apparent wins. Many targets describe themselves as cautious before the scammers approached them.

Bypass with a platform-first model.
Shift attention from the story to the system. Teach that unregulated apps, payment in crypto to personal wallets, and withdrawals blocked by new “fees” define a staged environment. The presence of any one of these conditions signals a stop. People no longer argue about the person. They audit the platform and the cash path.

Practical approach:
“Audit the system. Unregulated app. Personal wallet for deposits. Fees to unlock withdrawals. One red flag should end participation.”

This model moves pride out of the way and gives a neutral test.

Building Bypassing Messages That Stick

The most effective bypassing messages share four traits. They are short, specific, repeatable, and tied to an immediate action. The following design rules support those traits.

1. Lead with the task, not the myth.
   Begin with what the reader should do next. Keep verbs concrete. Example: “Verify wiring instructions by phone using the number on a signed engagement letter.”
2. Use small numbers.
   Three steps outperform seven. Two channels outperform one. A single sentence outperforms a paragraph during stress.
3. Give the cue and the response together.
   Pair a recognizable trigger with a standard action. Example: “If a message demands gift cards, stop and report.”
4. Fit the message to the moment.
   Create different versions for first contact, peak doubt, and recovery. People process information differently at each phase.
5. Practice in private.
   Encourage survivors to rehearse scripts with a counselor or advocate. Rehearsal helps the new model come to mind under pressure.

Where Corrections Still Matter

Bypassing does not replace correction. Corrections still carry value when myths are already active or when a false claim threatens immediate harm. The most effective corrections follow known principles. They state the fact first, remove repetition of the myth, and supply a brief, plausible explanation for why the myth emerged. They also offer an action step.

Example:

“Banks cannot guarantee recovery after a wire leaves your account. Criminals move funds through chains of accounts, which limits recall options. Call your bank’s fraud team now and request a wire recall. Save the reference number.”

This format reduces the echo of the false claim while directing the person to a next move. Prior expert reviews recommend that kind of structure because it limits backfire and keeps attention on the corrective fact. 

Supporting Someone in Profound Denial: A Step-by-Step Approach

Profound denial after a scam often protects a scam victim’s fragile sense of safety. It shields their mind from loss, humiliation, and fear, but it also blocks real information, recovery, leaving risks in place. A supporter/advocate can help a loved one move from denial to action by pairing calm rapport with bypassing techniques that replace arguments with simple working models.

The sequence below offers practical steps that respect dignity while closing active risks.

1) Prepare before contact

Gather facts that do not depend on the person’s testimony. Save dates, amounts, screenshots, and account records in a private folder. Identify the top three safety priorities, such as stopping money movement, cutting contact, and securing accounts. Rehearse short scripts out loud so the message stays steady under emotion.

2) Choose a low-threat setting

Pick a quiet, neutral place without distractions. Turn off notifications and place phones face down. Sit at an angle rather than head-on to lower perceived confrontation. Allow enough time so the conversation does not feel rushed.

3) Open with care, not conclusions

Begin with concern and a shared goal. Use plain sentences that name care, safety, and teamwork. For example: “This situation looks stressful and safety matters. Let us check a few things together so you stay protected.” Avoid labels such as scam or victim at the start.

4) Stabilize emotions before facts

Denial often rises with panic. Invite two or three slow breaths together. Offer water and a short pause. Keep voice and pace even. When a surge of anger or shame appears, acknowledge feelings briefly and return to a concrete step.

5) Use bypassing to replace argument

Do not debate the truth of the relationship or investment. Offer a small, accurate model that guides action. Example for money movements: “Irreversible payments need a second channel to verify instructions. Let us call the published number on the document.” Example for identity claims: “Three checks are safer than one. Let us try a live gesture, a nonpublic fact, and a call back to a listed number.”

6) Ask for micro-commitments

Large admissions trigger defense. Small actions build momentum. Ask for one immediate, low-friction step such as placing a temporary hold on outgoing wires, turning on multifactor authentication, or saving all messages in a folder. Praise the step without judgment, then ask for the next.

7) Anchor on shared values

Return to values that both people endorse, such as family safety, financial stability, and honesty. Link each requested action to those values. “Freezing wires today protects the down payment next month.” Values lower resistance and keeps the tone collaborative.

8) Separate the person from the tactic

Explain that professional criminals use scripts that exploit normal human wiring. State that careful people can be pressured when contact is constant and urgency is engineered. This framing lowers shame and keeps identity intact while behavior changes.

9) Confirm objective indicators, not intentions

Denial clings to motives and stories. Shift attention to neutral indicators. Ask to view the payment method, the platform’s registration status, the withdrawal history, and the sender’s domain. Treat each item like a checklist. If an indicator fails, move to a standard safety response rather than a debate.

10) Create a written safety plan for the next 48 hours

Write three to five steps on a single sheet. Include phone numbers for the bank fraud line, card issuers, and a local police nonemergency desk. Add account changes to complete, such as password resets from a clean device and review of email forwarding rules. Set a time to review progress. A short plan replaces circular talk.

11) Close the contact channel

Help the person block numbers, report the profile, and set filters that divert messages to a separate folder. If needed, change the primary messaging app for a period to reduce triggers. Explain that quiet protects clear thinking. Reinforce that this is a safety move, not a final judgment about past events.

12) Secure money pathways

Call the bank’s wire department and request a temporary hold or callback requirement for outgoing wires. Ask for alerts on transfers and card-not-present charges. For any funds sent in the last few days, request a recall or hold at the receiving bank. Document reference numbers and names. Quick action improves outcomes.

13) Contain information exposure

Change passwords for email, cloud storage, and financial accounts from a device that has current security updates. Enable multifactor authentication with an app or physical key. Review account recovery options and remove any phone numbers or emails that do not belong to the person. Check for unauthorized rules that forward or hide mail.

14) Introduce a gentle reality check

Once immediate risks are contained, invite a small verification that does not force a sweeping admission. Examples include a real-time check of a regulator’s database for the investment platform or a call to a published business line instead of a stored contact. If the result contradicts the story, acknowledge the discomfort and pivot to the next protective step rather than pushing for a declaration.

15) Offer a face-saving path

Denial softens when a person can preserve dignity. Provide language that frames the shift as prudence. Sentences such as “This is a routine audit for my accounts” or “My adviser requested a pause while we verify a detail” help the person act without feeling exposed.

16) Set boundaries that protect the household

If denial remains strong, place clear limits on shared accounts and devices. Move large transactions behind dual approval. Route financial statements to a separate email for the supporter until stability improves. Explain each boundary as temporary and protective.

17) Build a daily cadence that supports clarity

Encourage regular sleep, meals, sunlight, and brief walks. Suggest a fifteen-minute morning window to review the safety plan and make calls, followed by a pause from scam-related content for several hours. Routine reduces rumination and keeps progress steady.

18) Use third-party voices strategically

Invite a banker, counselor, or trusted community leader to confirm a specific fact rather than argue the whole story. Third-party confirmation reduces conflict in close relationships and carries authority on technical points. Keep the ask narrow, such as a single verification call.

19) Prepare for relapse moments

Denial can return when the criminal recontacts the person, when a staged “proof” arrives, or when loneliness spikes. Agree on a small script for those moments. Examples include “I do not discuss payments by message. I will call the published number” or “I cannot talk now. I will review with my adviser tomorrow.” Practice the script together.

20) Mark progress and keep records

Maintain a simple notebook with dates, calls made, case numbers, and account changes. Review it every few days. Visible progress helps a person accept the new reality and supports any future disputes with institutions.

21) Know when to escalate

If denial blocks essential protections or if threats escalate, involve appropriate authorities. Consider a temporary power of attorney limited to financial safeguards, if legally available and appropriate. Seek advice from a legal aid clinic or a financial counselor on protective orders for accounts. Safety takes priority over consensus when losses remain at risk.

22) Sustain change without humiliation

As clarity grows, avoid “I told you so” moments. Focus on the skills learned and the protections now in place. Encourage service to others when the person is ready, such as anonymously reporting a fake profile or sharing a vetted warning through a provider. Contribution helps restore agency and reduces the pull of old narratives.

This sequence gives supporters a practical roadmap for guiding someone through profound denial. Each step replaces confrontation with a safer model and a concrete action. Over time, the person sees that protective habits reduce chaos and restore control.

Applying Bypassing in Survivor Support

Advocates can integrate bypassing into every layer of their victims’/survivors’ support. The sections below describe practical moves for intake, education, peer groups, and public outreach.

Intake and First Contact

Newly defrauded people experience shock, sleep disruption, and racing thoughts. They often arrive carrying myths that push them toward self-blame or frantic action. Intake workers can use bypassing scripts to restore focus.

Use a three-step grounding sequence:

1. 1. Name the priority tasks.
   2. Provide a two-sentence model that explains what just happened in human terms.
   3. Move the person into a brief checklist.

Example language:

“A crime used social engineering and urgency to move money. Your next steps are to cut contact, protect accounts, and report the transfer. Let us start with your bank’s fraud line while we list the other calls.”

This sequence bypasses shame and puts the person in motion.

Educational Materials

Handouts, webpages, and videos should teach models that replace myths. Each page should open with a single behavior and a one paragraph explanation. Avoid long preambles that restate common false claims. Give the reader a clear path first.

Recommended core models for a resource library:

• • Contact cutoff steps for romance and investment frauds.
  • System audit steps for trading apps.
  • Payment hygiene rules for wires, crypto, and gift cards.
  • Identity verification steps for employment and rental screens.
  • Recovery timelines that set expectations for bank disputes and police reports.

Peer Support Groups

Group norms matter. Leaders can seed bypassing language at the start. For example, set a rule that each share ends with one practical step taken or planned. This shifts attention from narrative detail to action. It also reduces the unintentional spread of scam scripts during meetings.

When a participant repeats a myth, respond with a neutral bypass rather than debate.

• • Participant: “If only I had been smarter.”
  • Leader: “Scams exploit normal wiring. You protected yourself today by blocking contact and saving records. Let us walk through the bank call.”

This approach preserves dignity and momentum.

Public Outreach

Social posts and media interviews work best when they give a simple safety behavior and a recognizable cue. Avoid repeating myths in order to debunk them. Use headings that name the behavior.

Examples:

• • “Always verify wiring instructions by phone using a number on a signed document.”
  • “Three checks for identity on a video call.”
  • “Never pay fees to unlock withdrawals.”

These phrases and approaches speak well without inviting argument. They give the intended person something to do the next time a risky moment appears.

Inoculation Complements Bypassing

Inoculation prepares people by exposing common manipulation techniques in advance, then explaining how to spot them. It functions like a mental vaccine and pairs well with bypassing. Teach a few common tactics and the matching counter moves. Examples include fake scarcity, fake authority, and engineered reciprocity. Prior experimental work shows that pre-exposure to the tactic and its refutation can reduce later susceptibility, especially when examples are concrete and the advice is actionable.

A Toolkit Advocates Can Share

The following tools convert research into daily practice. They can be adapted for local use.

• The Two-Channel Rule
  Any instruction about money or credentials must be verified through a second, published channel. This rule covers wires, crypto, payroll changes, and password resets.
• The Three-Check Identity Screen
  Live gesture on camera. A nonpublic fact confirmed through an independent directory. A call back to a published number.
• The System Audit for Investment Platforms
  Registration status with a national regulator. Named corporate entity and physical address. Withdrawal tests before any additional funds. Any failure ends use.
• The First Hour After a Transfer
  Call the bank fraud or wire department and request a recall. Freeze affected accounts. Change email and financial passwords from a clean device. File a police report and save the case number.
• The Recovery Log
  A one-page sheet that lists calls made, case numbers, and next steps. It replaces memory under stress and becomes evidence if needed.
• The Language of Dignity
  Preferred phrases include “a crime occurred,” “engineered manipulation,” and “closing the contact channel.” These terms avoid blame and describe the process accurately.

Addressing Urban Legends About Scammers

Some myths describe criminals as easy to spot or confined to faraway locations. Others insist that certain professions or age groups never fall prey. These claims hide the industrial scale and professional structure of modern fraud networks. They also blind communities to local facilitators such as money mules, complicit call centers, and domestic recruiters.

Bypassing moves the focus from stereotypes to behaviors. Teach that reliable signals come from process, not appearance. For example, a request to move a conversation from a marketplace to an encrypted app, a sudden need for secrecy, or an insistence on off-platform payment should trigger the same response no matter who asks.

Here is information about many common urban legends on the SCARS Institute’s Encyclopedia of Scams: click here

Helping Families Use Bypassing at Home

Families often want to protect loved ones without creating conflict. Bypassing helps because it keeps the conversation centered on steps, not character judgments.

A calm household script can include:

• “If anyone asks you to pay by gift card, call me before you act.”
• “If a caller claims to be from the bank, hang up and dial the number on the back of the card.”
• “If a message mentions urgent travel or customs fees, pause and check with a second source.”

These phrases invite collaboration and reduce defensiveness.

Measuring Progress Without Shame

Communities should measure success by the spread of safe behaviors and the speed of helpful actions, not by the volume of warnings posted or myths refuted. Track how many people enroll in account alerts, use multifactor authentication, verify payment instructions by phone, or attend a short verification training. Celebrate practical wins, such as a reported fake profile that led to a takedown or a wire recall initiated within minutes.

When to Escalate Beyond Education

Some environments demand structural safeguards. Real estate closings benefit from standing procedures that require phone verification and in person checks. Universities can default to secure portals and disable links in billing emails. Employers can require maker-checker controls for outgoing payments. Advocates should push for these controls while they teach bypassing scripts. Process changes reduce reliance on memory and attention during stressful moments.

The Human Side: Reducing Shame and Restoring Agency

The goal is not to win arguments about accuracy. The goal is to help people act sooner and with more confidence. Bypassing supports that goal because it respects how minds work under pressure. It acknowledges that people need a small set of reliable moves they can recall quickly. It replaces self-blame with clear next steps. It also gives advocates a shared language they can use across hotlines, support groups, and outreach.

Conclusion

Misinformation about scams thrives because it gives simple answers to complicated questions. Direct refutation has a place, but it rarely clears the field. Bypassing offers a better route for daily practice. Teach accurate models first. Tie them to short scripts and visible actions. Keep the tone calm and the verbs concrete. When myths show up, do not wrestle with them longer than necessary. Point back to the working model and move forward.

Victims and families can adopt these habits today. Advocates can build them into every touchpoint. Over time, the community carries fewer rumors and more reliable skills. That shift is how people regain control, prevent new losses, and support each other with dignity.

Note: This guidance reflects established insights about the limits of direct correction and the promise of nonconfrontational strategies, as described in the misinformation literature and in emerging work on bypassing as an influence approach.

Glossary

• Alternative mental model — A replacement explanation that makes a false claim unnecessary. It gives a clear way to understand a topic and points to concrete actions. People adopt it more easily under stress because it feels simple and usable.
• Attachment wiring — The human tendency to bond during repeated, emotionally charged contact. Scammers exploit this wiring to increase trust and urgency. Recognizing the pattern helps survivors separate the tactic from their worth.
• Brain shortcuts — Quick mental rules people use to save time when making decisions. Criminals design scripts to trigger these shortcuts during pressure. Awareness of shortcuts supports calmer choices and safer pauses.
• Bypassing — A nonconfrontational strategy that teaches a correct model before or instead of arguing with a myth. It lowers defensiveness and keeps attention on helpful steps. Communities use it to replace rumors with clear routines.
• Call-back to a published number — A verification step that confirms instructions through a known, official phone line. It breaks the attacker’s control of the conversation. This step is required before any high-risk transfer.
• Checklists — Short lists that turn guidance into small actions. They reduce cognitive load during stress and improve follow-through. Advocates use them to standardize first steps after a scam.
• Community habits — Shared safety routines that members practice together. Habits make protective behavior normal and repeatable. Strong habits reduce the space where myths can operate.
• Concrete cues — Specific signals that indicate risk or safety. Examples include a demand for gift cards or a sudden move off platform. Pairing each cue with a standard response builds reliable behavior.
• Contact channel — The path a criminal uses to reach a target, such as messaging apps or email. Closing this channel steadies emotions and reduces manipulation. It is often the first step in recovery.
• Correction — A brief factual statement that addresses a false claim already in play. Effective corrections state the fact first, add a short reason, and provide one action. This structure limits argument and guides behavior.
• Daily cadence — A simple routine that supports clarity during recovery. Regular sleep, meals, short walks, and scheduled check-ins reduce rumination. A steady cadence helps survivors complete protective tasks.
• Denial — A protective state that shields a person from overwhelming feelings after a scam. It can slow protective steps and prolong exposure to risk. Gentle guidance and small actions help shift denial toward safety.
• Dual authorization — A control that requires two approvals for outgoing payments or sensitive changes. Families and organizations use it to prevent errors and insider misuse. The control protects large transfers during stressful periods.
• Engineered reciprocity — A tactic where criminals create a sense of obligation to gain compliance. It often appears as favors, gifts, or staged help. Inoculation against this tactic reduces later susceptibility.
• Face-saving path — Language and steps that protect dignity while behavior changes. It frames verification as routine and professional. This approach reduces resistance and supports cooperation.
• Fake authority — The use of titles, logos, or formal language to simulate credibility. Criminals use it to suppress questions and speed compliance. Teaching people to verify through published channels reduces its effect.
• Fake scarcity — A pressure cue that claims an offer or window will close quickly. It shortens thinking time and increases errors. Recognizing scarcity as a tactic supports calm pauses and verification.
• First hour after a transfer — The period when rapid action can still interrupt or recall funds. Steps include calling the bank’s fraud or wire team, freezing accounts, and changing passwords from a clean device. Acting within minutes improves outcomes.
• Group identity concerns — Fears that accepting new facts will harm standing within a valued group. These concerns can block corrections. Bypassing reduces the threat by focusing on actions rather than labels.
• Group norms — Agreed rules that keep peer spaces safe and practical. Examples include no victim blaming, ending shares with one step taken, and avoiding detailed scam scripts. Clear norms prevent harm and support progress.
• Help-seeking — The act of reaching out for assistance after a scam. Lower shame and clear steps increase help-seeking. Communities that normalize early contact see faster protection and recovery.
• Hold period — A planned delay before releasing or settling funds. It gives time to verify instructions through a second channel. Hold periods reduce losses during high-risk transfers.
• Identity threat — The feeling that change will damage self-image. It can harden false beliefs and block updates. Calmer models and respectful language lower this threat.
• Independent directory — A trusted source used to confirm nonpublic facts. It supports layered verification on calls and video. Failure to match should stop the interaction.
• Inoculation — A brief warning that explains a common tactic and why it fails. It prepares people to spot the tactic later. Inoculation complements bypassing by building early resistance.
• Intake and first contact — The initial support stage after a scam. Workers name priority tasks, give a plain model of what happened, and move the person into a short checklist. This approach lowers shame and restores focus.
• Irreversible payments — Methods such as wires, cryptocurrency, or gift cards that are hard to recover once sent. They require out-of-band confirmation before use. Treating them as high risk prevents frequent losses.
• Layered verification model — A process that combines several small checks to confirm identity or instructions. It may include a live gesture on video, a nonpublic fact from an independent directory, and a call-back to a published number. One failure ends the exchange.
• Language of dignity — Neutral terms that describe what occurred without blame. Phrases like a crime occurred and engineered manipulation reduce shame. Respectful language supports action and reporting.
• Live interaction and unique gesture — A real-time video check that requires a specific movement or sign. It defeats simple video loops and staged clips. It is one layer in a broader identity screen.
• Maker-checker controls — A safeguard where one person creates a payment and another approves it. Organizations use it to prevent fraud and error. The control pairs well with verification rules.
• Mental model — A short explanation that guides behavior during stress. Good models answer what to do next in plain language. They replace myths and improve decisions.
• Micro-commitments — Small, low-friction actions that start momentum. Examples include enabling multifactor authentication or saving screenshots. Success with one step supports the next step.
• Multifactor authentication — A login protection that requires a second proof in addition to a password. App prompts or physical keys work better than text messages. This layer blocks many account takeovers.
• Nonpublic fact — Information that a stranger cannot easily know or search. Verifying one nonpublic fact reduces the risk of impersonation. It is a standard part of layered checks.
• Out-of-band confirmation — Verification through a separate, trusted channel. It includes dialing a published number or checking an official portal rather than replying to a message. This step prevents the attacker from steering the conversation.
• Payment hygiene model — A standing rule set for handling money instructions. It requires second-channel verification, face-to-face checks for large transfers, and holds or dual approvals where possible. Consistent hygiene prevents urgent mistakes.
• Peer support groups — Survivor communities that share practical steps and encouragement. Clear norms keep groups focused on safety and action. These spaces reduce isolation and spread reliable habits.
• Personal wallet — A destination address controlled by an individual rather than a regulated institution. Demands to deposit into a personal wallet signal high risk. This condition often appears on staged platforms.
• Platform-first model — A shift in focus from a person’s story to how the system handles money. It checks registration, entity details, and withdrawals before trust. One failure ends participation.
• Public outreach — Safety messaging delivered through media or social channels. The strongest posts lead with a simple behavior and a clear cue. Avoiding myth repetition limits confusion.
• Recovery log — A simple record of calls, case numbers, transactions, and next steps. It replaces memory during stress and documents progress. Logs support disputes with banks and agencies.
• Relapse moments — Times when pressure or contact pulls someone back toward risky behavior. Scripts and preplanned responses reduce slips. Expecting these moments keeps plans realistic.
• Safety plan — A short, written list of protective steps for the next two days. It includes key phone numbers and account changes. A clear plan replaces circular talk and guides action.
• Shared values — Core priorities such as family safety or financial stability that both parties endorse. Linking steps to these values lowers resistance. Values keep cooperation steady during hard conversations.
• Staged platform — An app or site designed to display controlled balances and wins while blocking withdrawals. It often demands new fees to unlock funds. System checks reveal the pattern faster than personal judgments.
• Structural safeguards — Process changes that reduce risk at scale. Examples include required phone verification for closings, secure portals for billing, and maker-checker controls. Safeguards lower dependence on memory during stress.
• System audit — A quick review of a service that handles money or identity. It checks regulator registration, legal entity, physical address, and withdrawal history. Any failure signals a stop.
• Three-Check Identity Screen — A sequence that combines a live gesture on video, a nonpublic fact confirmed through an independent directory, and a call-back to a published number. The screen reduces impersonation risk. One miss ends the interaction.
• Two-Channel Rule — A rule that any instruction about money or credentials must be confirmed through a second, published channel. It covers wires, crypto, payroll changes, and password resets. The rule blocks many common attack paths.
• Urban legends — Widely shared but inaccurate stories about scams, criminals, or victims. They feel simple and reassuring but cause harm. Replacing them with clear models improves prevention and recovery.

Reference

About the Study: Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes

The study tests two ways of countering misinformation: correcting the claim directly through negation and bypassing it by introducing accurate, value-relevant beliefs that point in the opposite direction without repeating the myth.

Across six preregistered experiments, bypassing generally produced larger shifts in attitudes and behavioral intentions after exposure to misinformation than simple negation, confirming that steering attention toward accurate alternatives can outperform direct refutation in many settings. The advantage did not arise from deeper processing or cognitive load. It depended on what people were doing at the moment they encountered the falsehood. When participants formed attitudes first, initial evaluations anchored later judgments, and bypassing offered no benefit over correction.

When participants focused on accuracy and formed beliefs first, bypassing proved more effective, consistent with expectancy-value reasoning in which new accurate beliefs shape downstream attitudes. The experiments used diverse topics, included process checks, and reported open materials. Results also showed that misinformation can continue to influence attitudes even after direct correction, while bypassing reduced that residual impact by shifting the belief inputs that feed evaluations.

The authors note boundary conditions and limits, including non-national samples and laboratory tasks, and call for field tests with institutional messaging. Practical implications follow directly. Communicators can reduce the lingering pull of misinformation by emphasizing clear, truthful beliefs that carry opposite implications, while minimizing repetition of the myth. In high-stakes domains such as health or fraud prevention, designing messages that foster belief formation about verified facts before attitudes harden should improve outcomes and reduce resistance.

Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39556359/

Additional Reading

• Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
  Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K. H. Ecker, Colleen M. Seifert, Norbert Schwarz and John Cook
• Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence
  John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K. H. Ecker
• Bypassing as a Non-Confrontational Influence Strategy
  Javier Granados Samayoa, Dolores Albarracin

Author Biographies

Please Rate This Article

Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.

Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.

-/ 30 /-

What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment above!