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
 

Misinformation is widespread, but only some people fall for the false information they encounter. This raises two questions: Who falls for misinformation, and why do they fall for misinformation? To address these questions, two studies investigated associations between 15 individual-difference dimensions and judgments of misinformation as true. Using Signal Detection Theory, the studies further investigated whether the obtained associations are driven by individual differences in truth sensitivity, acceptance threshold, or myside bias. For both political misinformation (Study 1) and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 2), truth sensitivity was positively associated with cognitive reflection and actively open-minded thinking, and negatively associated with bullshit receptivity and conspiracy mentality. Although acceptance threshold and myside bias explained considerable variance in judgments of misinformation as true, neither showed robust associations with the measured individual-difference dimensions. The findings provide deeper insights into individual differences in misinformation susceptibility and uncover critical gaps in their scientific understanding.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago

I will say this that if you think you are immune to propaganda, then you have been propagandized. We are all susceptible.

There is a reason why the phrase "you can fool all of the people some of the time" is included in the phrase "you can include all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but not all of the people all of the time".

A very apt example that still riles some people's feathers is that some people still hate Hillary Clinton.

Not just like a dislike or an aversion, but an actual personal hatred.

This hatred is from propaganda, and pretty much any time it is mentioned somebody will crawl out of the woodworks to explain exactly why they hate Hillary Clinton.

[–] melp@beehaw.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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:

  1. Truth sensitivity: Ability to distinguish true from false information
  2. Acceptance threshold: General tendency to accept information as true
  3. Myside bias: Tendency to accept information congruent with one's views

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:

  • Lower cognitive reflection abilities
  • Lower actively open-minded thinking
  • Higher bullshit receptivity (tendency to find random statements profound)
  • Higher conspiracy mentality

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

  • Demonstrates that multiple factors affect misinformation susceptibility
  • Shows that analytical reasoning (cognitive reflection, AOT) may reduce misinformation belief through improved truth sensitivity, but is unlikely to affect belief driven by low acceptance threshold or myside bias
  • Identifies a major gap in understanding individual differences in acceptance threshold and myside bias
  • Provides evidence for general propensities to fall for misinformation across different content domains

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.

[–] myfavouritename@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] melp@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used Claude. I know ... AI bad. But for long reads it helps a lot.

[–] fracture@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] melp@beehaw.org 1 points 1 day ago

I skimmed. It seems to have the general idea.

[–] iii@mander.xyz 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I always liked Kahneman's work on this topic.

[–] higgsboson@dubvee.org 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

I prefer his full name: "The Father of Behavioral Economics, the Great Danny Kahneman,PhD and his lifelong co-collaborator, Amos Tversky."

Sorry. He gets mentioned so often in the podcasts I listen to, all that is queued up in my brain upon hearing his name. There is literally a drinking game based on how often he is mentioned.

[–] elfpie@beehaw.org 2 points 1 day ago

Curious. When talking about scams, I would say everyone, even scam experts. Maybe there's the fact that specific populations are targeted based on how much one will profit from their efforts.