♪ announcer: building a better bay area, moving forward, finding solutions, this is abc7 news. >> you are watching getting answers live. we ask experts to get answers in real time. today, conflicts surrounding covid mandates at school board meetings. board members are asking for protection. also, how to fight disinformation threatening our democracy. first, is someone you love opposed to the covid vaccine, masking, and you don't know what to do? the issue is tearing friends, families apart. joining us is ben rosenberg, psychology professor at dominican university of

california. thank you for being with us. thank you for your time. dr. rosenberg: thank you. > four that points out that many doctors, scientists and politicians are involved with these conversations, and rightfully so, but it is time to involve psychologist and sociologist as well. how does our country to the public good? dr. rosenberg? there are a lot of who can persuade people to engage in the behaviors we want them to. although the doctors and public health folks is invaluable, the expertise of social scientist has been overlooked. we can contribute something to the conversation with all that we know about opening to shape people's behavior >> you have been trying to figure out why was so much data about vaccine effectiveness and masking

effectiveness, why is it keeping people out of the hospital and icus as people are fighting back against vaccines? and mask, mandates, why do you think that is from a psychologist's perspective. dr. rosenberg: this assumption we have that people are logical, rational actors that just providing them with accurate information about something is sufficient to get them to do that thing, and unfortunately we know from a lot of social science research that is not the case. people may have accurate information, but they still might not act in line with it and may do whatever they want. the second thing is that people just generally don't like being told what to do. we value our freedom, and we don't like it when others including health experts, tell us what to do. often we see, especially around masking and vaccination, people

react against these mandates to do with the health experts say they should, because they want to maintain their freedom. kristen: i have a couple of teenagers, so i know what you're talking about about, hey, mom, do not tell me what i must do because i would do the opposite. given that, you offer three ways to fight what you call pandemic rebellion, and we made a graphic to show people with those main points are and you can walk us through these. one is reverse psychology, two, supportive language, and three, inoculations. how does reverse psychology get into play in effect messaging? dr. rosenberg: most of the time the messages are telling people to do something. the issue is when people who value their freedom say i do not want to do with this message is telling me to do, mask up, get vaccinated comes of the messages can be slightly changed to tell people that actually by not doing those things they are

actually threatening their own other people's freedom to do what they want or engage in the behaviors they might want to, like breathing covid-free air, seeing families, getting go to bars and restaurants. kristen: have we seen that works in some other non-covid scenarios? dr. rosenberg: absolutely. there is research to back that up. when you frame messages like that, you can use these reactions people have against health mandates for the better, so encourage them to engage in the behavior we want. a study looked at this kind of messaging with secondhand smoke indoors, and it was rather effective in getting people to cut down the amount of smoking they did indoors. kristen: the second counterintuitive way you offered was supportive language. what is that? dr. rosenberg: again, most health messages we see are

directives that tell people how they should behave. they often use messages like you must, or even things like you have to do this. a slight wording change can get people to be a little bit less reactive against those messages. rather than saying people must do something, they might be more encouraging and so you should consider doing this, or it is in your best interest to do this. that is less of a direct message, and it might make people more except to messaging. kristen: what is the inoculation strategy, other than the inoculation? what does that mean? dr. rosenberg: the irony is thick on that one. it means warning people that a message they might react strongly against is coming at them. the message you are about to see might threaten your freedom or restrict the choice you feel you

have, but just because we are putting this warning out there, it will actually decrease the reactions people have against the message. they won't feel quite as reactive to the freedom restriction that is presented in the message when they see that inoculation before hand. kristen: it is like pre-prepping you, and the message that follows is not quite as painful? dr. rosenberg: exactly. kristen: we need to expect things we may not like? dr. rosenberg: not so much things we may not like i'm of the things we may not want to do , right? if we know there is a chance at telling somebody to get a vaccination to wear a mask and to get a screening for health conditions, if we know there is a chance they may not want to do it, we can prep, prepare them to say you might not like this message, but we will present it anyways, and that can take the edge off a little bit. kristen: if these are strategies that you think are most useful by policymakers, politicians,

public health directors, or even individuals who are just talking to their aunt, mother or someone who does not want to get vaccinated? dr. rosenberg: all of the above. my cat made it into a great l it tv moment. kristen: can we get that again? that always boosts ratings. go ahead. dr. rosenberg: repeat your question. kristen: now i'm focused on the cat. i'm wondering about people who can adapt that strategy for individuals, like talking to friends and loved ones. dr. rosenberg: it applies at all levels. i would love to see folks from cdc on down adopting these kinds of strategies, and not just these, there are lots of strategies and social science literature that can be applied, but they applied to interpersonal communication as well, so if you're talking to teenagers, or from talking to my two and a half-year-old, they

might respond more positively if they frame the message in a way that is less directed and more supportive. kristen: in the tug-of-war inside our brains over, or maybe our hearts, i don't know, rational versus emotional decision-making, talk about, you know, why we are more likely to respond one way versus the other two something or have such a strong conviction based on emotion versus rationality, and does it really make sense to go with rational, or sometimes does the emotional approach work? dr. rosenberg: no doubt. it's not always better to go with the rational. a couple things are important. the current emotional state or state of mind impacts the way they perceive persuasive messages, so if i'm feeling happy, i tend to be more open and more receptive to messages you are giving me and i tend to be more compliant with requests. if i'm feeling angry or sad, my focus is more narrow, so i may

nitpick your message and find something i don't agree with unsorted spell it. -- and sort of dispel it. the way the messages framed is also important in determining how people will interpret it through this emotional rational framework. kristen: teenagers are more receptive and a happier state of mind, but so many are so unhappy right now, like more than a year and half into the pandemic, that given that, does that mean we can only talk to people about these things in a very supportive rather than to cunning kind of way? dr. rosenberg: perhaps it would be helpful. there are these things we use in social science cold momentary emotional infusions, where you can temporarily boost somebody's emotional state, so it might even be that before giving him a covid related message that you make them happy somehow, play a

bit of music, so a funny video clip, tell a joke, have your cap work by the video screen to put them in a better mood before you can convey some serious and important information. kristen: those are great tips to keep in mind in many facets of life. professor rosenberg at the dominican university of california, thank you p the only way that conversation could been better if that cap made a few more appearances, but we appreciate it. dr. rosenberg: thank you for having me. kristen: coming up, disinformation, what it is, how does it start, and how to stop it. the dean of the uc berkeley school of global weight input we

kristen: welcome back. whether it is the pandemic,

vaccines, racial equity, there is a lot of disinformation today. some is purposeful aimed at dividing our society. what can we do about it? how do we battle disinformation without compromising core principles like the first amendment? joining us is the dean of the uc berkeley of law, one of the nation's leading authorities on the first amendment and the constitution. thank you for joining us. it is good to see you professor. >> delighted to talk to you. kristen: we are focusing on disinformation. what is the difference between misinformation and disinformation? >> the difference is misinformation would be in error . disinformation would usually be referring to an intentional falsehood. we all make mistakes. there can be errors that are inadvertent on the web, but

there is the effort by some to intentionally provide false information, and that is different. kristen: do you think there has been an explosion in disinformation? it feels like it. does the evidence bear that out? what enabled it? >> of course there has been an explosion in disinformation and misinformation, but there has been an explosion in the availability of information. we now on our phones have access to infinite amounts of information. it is not surprising that part of that is much more disinformation as well. the internet and social media have dramatically changed the nature of information in our society. kristen: yes, there is simply more information, including disinformation. what recent or unfortunate damaging events have occurred as a result? >> i think the disinformation about vaccination has had a real

effect on our society. what if from the very beginning all the information was accurate representing what science tells us? 700,000 people have died as a result of the pandemic, and so many of those deaths were needless. another example, the false information circulated about the november 2020 presidential election. every court in the country, republican judges, democratic judges, liberals, conservatives, all found no evidence of voter fraud. yet, 30% of americans believe that donald trump had the election stolen from him. that is terrible from the perspective of democracy, but it is a result of the disinformation that exist on social media in the web. kristen: let's talk about solutions. this is contentious. most are aware of a problem, but what about the idea social media companies can be held liable for things that are posted on their

platform that is disinformation? what is your take? erwin: i don't think it would be a good idea. section 230 of the communications decency act says the social media companies can't be held liable for posting. if we were to make those companies liable, they would have to screen everything that is put their to make sure not to face a liability. for facebook, there are four point 7 billion items of information posted every day. if they had to screen all of those, they would engage in tremendous over censorship and we would lose much more speech. kristen: speaking of censorship, many will call it that if we rely on the government were to regulate kind of information can be posted. certainly there are countries that do that. argue in favor of going that direction a little bit in exchange for less misinformation or disinformation, or do you say no, no, no go? erwin: i am not in favor of

that. i don't want the government to decide what is true and false and then censor that. what if donald trump was president and said what is true is he won the election and anyone who says anything different is false and he will ban it from the internet? we have to deal with the false information in the government censorship. kristen: can you talk about what might be some good answers and certain types of regulation you think balance things out a whole? erwin: i don't have good answers . i haven't seen any. when answer suggested in congress is if social medi companiesa acknowledge of misinformation, then and only then do they have the duty to take it down, so it does not put the burden on them for every piece of information, but it does when they have noticed that information is false to take action. kristen: what about rating social media platforms for

treating us -- truth? erwin: it depends on who does the ratings. the government shouldn't. we have a private entity that determines adult content for films. you can see what we have, social media sources, social media, which you call truth, and what you call he would do the ratings and how would they go about doing those ratings? kristen: i am sure people probably can agree on that. one last thing, what about supporting more factual information? the balance the misinformation/disinformation, how can we make sure people have more accurate system to accurate reporting, accurate data information? erwin: that is so important. part of it is the services that exist to do fact checking. we should support them. we need to support local media. the reality is because of the internet and social media, there

has been a devastating effect on local newspapers and local reporting. we need to find a way to support that. i would favor taxes on social media companies with subsidies going to local journalism, and that is a way we can also increase truthful information in society. i think we better leave it there. kristen: thank you s thank you k your time. erwin: my pleasure. thank you. kristen: we will take hey, i just got a text from my sister. you remember rick, her neighbor? sure, he's the 76-year-old guy who still runs marathons, right? sadly, not anymore. -what, you mean-- -mhm. -just like that. -wow. so sudden. um, we're not about to have the "we need life insurance" conversation again, are we? no, we're having the "we're getting coverage so we don't have to worry about it" conversation.

so you're calling about the $9.95 a month plan -from colonial penn? -i am. we put it off long enough. we are getting that $9.95 plan, today. (jonathan) is it time for you to call about the $9.95 plan? i'm jonathan from colonial penn life insurance company. sometimes we just need a reminder not to take today for granted. it could be the death of someone you know or a health scare. that's why today could be a great day to call for free information about colonial penn's $9.95 plan. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get guaranteed acceptance whole life insurance starting at just $9.95 a month. there are no health questions so you can't be turned down for any health reason. this is permanent coverage. just pay your premiums for lifelong security. the $9.95 plan is colonial penn's number one most popular whole life plan. options start at just $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. your rate can never go up. it's locked in for life.

don't put it off. take the first easy step. call today for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner, l w. (soft music) ♪ ♪ hello, colonial penn? kristen: throughout the pandemic , you have seen battles across the country, and at school board meetings, often between parents and school board members. joining us today is the chief information officer for california school boards association. thank you for joining us. troy: thanks for having me. kristen: it represents each and every one of the school districts in california is

thousand school districts? troy: yes. kristen: so we have seen verbal attacks and physical assaults forcing school board meetings to end the -- end early. is that the exception are normal-looking across 1000 school district? troy: the willful disruption school board meetings is not the norm, but it is happening at a disturbing rate. it is an unprecedented number of incidents that we are seeing that have increased dramatically over the past couple of years. they are driven by response to covid-19 mitigation measures, but not exclusively by that. we have seen an increase in partisanship, and increasing hostility, on the number of different issues, and the way people are expressing it is not just disrespectful. in many cases, it is unlawful. that is what we are objecting to. kristen: we have seen conflicts

in the bay area. one in san ramon not too long ago in which they really had to end it early because it got tense. what is the response by school board members that you have talked to? are they in fear? is this something they expected when they took on the job? troy: school board members expect to be at the center of controversy. schools are about supporting students and educating kids. kids of the most valuable asset we have in our society, so we understand that issues related to children are going to be especially sensitive and provoke a response, but this is going beyond the normal level of conflict that school board members are used to come to where they can't conduct the public's business. this is that a time when it is very critical to be acting promptly in the interest of children, and we are seeing that they abandon meetings and school board members receiving death threats, death threats against

families, seen people in certain localities force the board to run out the back door. all these things are violating not just general decency, but in many cases, california laws. kristen: if it is an infringement on the law, what is the solution? who needs to do more to prevent these scenarios and protect the school board members? troy: ultimately, we would like local law enforcement to uphold their duty and uphold the law when there are transgressions or violations, and they are contacted to commandeer with the situations, to do with they have been charged to do and to carry out their legal duty. unfortunately in some areas around the state, if law enforcement has responded alter local disruption of board meetings to trespassing, to threats and intimidation, they have elected not to do anything, even in cases where there is a

public health order or some sort of law that requires wearing a mask indoors and they refrained or declined from enforcing the mass quarter, or from enforcing transposing violations, and so what we're doing is calling on the governor and the attorney general to use their moral and legal authority to compel local law enforcement agencies to do their duty and uphold the law so scoreboards can perform their public function. kristen: did you get a response from the governor? troy: we have not. we sent an open letter to the governor on friday, and contacted him and his staff in a number of different ways, and we are eagerly awaiting his response, because our school board members are suffering an onslaught, and all to me they cannot do their business the way they need to and students suffer. kristen: we don't want to generalize, so can you point to any particular school district or police department that you not that she would say has been

unresponsive? i'm sure it is not the truth, the case entirely were no police show up and enforce the masking ruler take people away for becoming violent. troy: that is true. were talking about selective incidents. i don't want to create the impression that the majority of time or local law enforcement agencies are not responsive. when we notice a trend, we want to highlight that before we have a situation where somebody gets hurt or worse at the school board meetings. a couple of instances that are not in the bay area, but one school district in suburban san diego is a district where the police were called and came and neglected to assure people out of a meeting, a meeting that was closed with social distancing precautions in place, but people rushed the venue and refused to leave, and the police would not escort this people out of the

building, and so, the board was forced to abandon the meeting, and that was a meeting where they had agenda items that were time sensitive that needed to be voted on that day and they did not get to do it. kristen: we have about 15 seconds i would like to like -- i would like to ask you what people can do if they're watching this? troy: what people can do is make sure that when they're coming to meetings to express their first amendment rights, which we encourage, that they are abiding by the laws that are set forth in their community and by the standards and practices of that are supposed to be upheld at that meeting. kristen: troy flynt with the california school board association. thank you for your time. appreciated. troy: thank you. kristen:

kristen: thank you for joining us on this "getting answers." interactive show today "getting answers.". tonight, top u.s. military leaders on the hill, appearing to contradict president biden, saying they did recommend a small u.s. force stay in afghanistan. the chairman of the joint chiefs general mark milley, general frank mckenzie and defense secretary lloyd austin grilled on the chaotic withdrawal of u.s. troops from afghanistan and the swift collapse to the taliban. general milley calling the 20-year war, quote, a strategic failu failure. and general milley questioned about calls with his counterpart in china during the final months of the trump presidency. how he explain ed it. also tonight, news on vaccines for children 5 to 11. what we learned from pfizer today. and boosters for adults.

tonight, the new study here o