SoylentNews

AnonTechie [soylentnews.org] writes:

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development have identified who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. Their meta-analysis reveals surprising patterns on how demographic and psychological factors—including age, education, political identity, analytical thinking, and motivated reflection—affect people’s ability to assess the accuracy of information. For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education. The work, published in the journal PNAS, provides important information for theory building and designing interventions.

[...] The researchers found no significant impact of education on people’s ability to distinguish between true and false information. This contradicts the widespread belief that more educated individuals are likely to be less susceptible to misinformation, especially as higher education teaches us critical thinking. The study also challenges assumptions about age and misinformation. While older adults are often portrayed as more vulnerable to fake news, the analysis found that they were actually better than younger adults at distinguishing between true and false headlines. Older adults were also more skeptical and tended to label headlines as false more often. Paradoxically, however, previous research has consistently shown that older adults engage with and share more misinformation online. The study distinguishes between three age groups: 18-31 years, 32-47 years and 48-88 years.

[...] Political identity also played a key role. The meta-analysis confirmed previous research showing that individuals who identify as Republicans are more likely to fall for misinformation than those who identify as Democrats. Republicans were less accurate at assessing the veracity of news and tended to label more headlines as true, whereas Democrats were more skeptical.

Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). People were more likely to believe that news that aligned with their political identity was true and to disregard news that was not aligned with their political identity—a phenomenon known as partisan bias.

However, a counterintuitive finding was that individuals with higher analytical thinking were actually more susceptible to partisan bias. This tendency is known as motivated reflection, which is a cognitive process where individuals' analytical reasoning works against them to protect their pre-existing beliefs, values, or partisan affiliations.

The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. This finding underscores the danger of repeated exposure to misinformation, particularly on social media.

[...] The results come at a critical time. “The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 [weforum.org] identifies misinformation as one of the greatest risks to the world in the next two years. With the rise of right-wing populism, the study's results are highly relevant and could influence debates on how to best combat misinformation in different demographic groups“, says co-author Ralf Kurvers, Senior Research Scientist at the Center for Adaptive Rationality of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development.

[Source]: Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin [www.mpg.de]

[Journal Ref]: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [doi.org]

[Covered By]: PHYS.ORG [phys.org]

Original Submission