Who Falls for Fake News? The Roles of Analytic Thinking, Motivated Reasoning, Political Ideology, and Bullshit Receptivity

By Gordon Pennycook, David G. Rand. 2017

681 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Literature and Literary Theory, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d9feda4a8e1830289ee7b1b447322f0d92e17cf0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Literature and Literary Theory

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The Psychology of Fake News. (2021, background): “One key route to intuitive belief in news is familiarity [37].”
Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention (2020, background): “…2017; Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018), our data are more consistent with recent studies on political misinformation that provide both correlational (Pennycook & Rand, 2019b; including data from Twitter sharing, Mosleh, Pennycook, Arechar, & Rand, 2020) and experimental (Bago, Rand, & Pennycook,…”
Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories (2020, background): “Like BCT, belief in fake news has also been found to be associated with delusion-proneness, bullshit receptivity, and reduced analytic thinking (Bronstein et al., 2019; Pennycook & Rand, 2019, 2020).”
Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: a review (2023, neutral): “Unlike the previously mentioned researchers who focus on news content in their approaches, Pennycook and Rand (2019) focus on using crowdsourced judgments of the quality of news sources to combat social media disinformation.”
Emphasizing publishers does not effectively reduce susceptibility to misinformation on social media (2020, methodology): “Yet, others (Austin & Dong, 1994, Pennycook & Rand, 2019b, Jakesch et al., 2018) have failed to demonstrate that assessments of news stories are changed by source information.”
Credibility Perceptions and Detection Accuracy of Fake News Headlines on Social Media: Effects of Truth-Bias and Endorsement Cues (2020, background): “Pennycook and Rand (2019, 2020) demonstrated that discerning real from fake news may be challenging to the extent that it correlates with individuals’ analytical thinking tendency.”
The Debunking Handbook 2020 (2020, neutral): “However, credibility may have limited effects when people pay little attention to the source 54, 55 , or when the sources are news outlets rather than people 56, 57 .”
Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation: The 2016 Russian Interference Twitter Campaign (2018, neutral): “Presidential election [3], [34], [39], [45], [50], [59].”
Political Ideology Predicts Perceptions of the Threat of COVID-19 (and Susceptibility to Fake News About It) (2020, result): “We also replicated previous research showing that CRT performance predicts news discernment (e.g., Pennycook & Rand, 2019b, 2020).”
False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey (2018, positive): “[73] investigated the psychological profiles to show a positive correlation between propensity for analytic thinking and the ability to discern false from real information, suggesting that false information often spreads due to poor analytical skills on the part of the consumer spreader.”