this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
17 points (100.0% liked)
Science
13209 readers
41 users here now
Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tl;dr - literally idiots fall for misinfo.
Summary on "Who Falls for Misinformation and Why?" by Hubeny, Nahon, Ng, and Gawronski.
Study Overview
This research investigated who falls for misinformation and why, using Signal Detection Theory (SDT) to identify three distinct factors affecting misinformation susceptibility:
The researchers conducted two studies examining associations between 15 individual-difference dimensions and misinformation susceptibility: Study 1 with political misinformation (274 participants) and Study 2 with COVID-19 vaccine misinformation (222 participants).
Key Findings
Who Falls for Misinformation
People were more likely to believe misinformation if they had:
Why They Fall for Misinformation
The research revealed these associations were primarily driven by differences in truth sensitivity. People with high cognitive reflection and actively open-minded thinking showed better ability to distinguish true from false information, while those high in bullshit receptivity and conspiracy mentality showed poorer ability.
A bifactor model analysis revealed these four dimensions are largely driven by a single underlying factor the authors call "reflective open-mindedness."
Acceptance Threshold and Myside Bias
While individual differences in acceptance threshold and myside bias both contributed to misinformation susceptibility, none of the 15 individual-difference dimensions showed reliable associations with these factors across both studies.
Theoretical Contributions
This research suggests that while we understand what makes people better at distinguishing true from false information (truth sensitivity), we don't yet understand what makes some people have higher acceptance thresholds or show stronger myside bias.
That's a great synopsis of the study. Did you write that yourself or use some tool to derive the summary?
Either way, I'm sure folks here appreciate the effort. Thanks.
I used Claude. I know ... AI bad. But for long reads it helps a lot.
i guess it's a good motivation to go actually read the paper. i can't stand not knowing if the summary i just read was accurate or not (and i'm assuming that you didn't go double check yourself, either. not hating, but it is a known downside to using AI summaries)
... oh, do you (the reader) want to know if it was accurate? guess you'll also have to read the study to find out :p
seems especially relevant when talking about a study related to discerning truth from false
I skimmed. It seems to have the general idea.