A short review on susceptibility to falling for fake political news

Sindermann, Cornelia; Cooper, Andrew; Montag, Christian

doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.014

Cited by 76 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(39 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, these topics also motivate theory development by highlighting a new class of problems in need of further explanation: Only a small fraction of online content draws sufficient attention and interest to be shared on social media. Understanding the psychology that undergirds the dynamics of social media sharing is an important emerging subfield in psychology [28,83,127,128] (in addition to other areas such as computer science [90], political science [129], communication [130], public health [131], among others), driven in large part by concerns around misinformation. Tackling these questions will give psychologists the opportunity to demonstrate the power and real-world impact of psychological theory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Fake News

Pennycook¹,

Rand²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We synthesize a burgeoning literature investigating why people believe and share “fake news” and other misinformation online. Surprisingly, the evidence contradicts a common narrative whereby partisanship and politically motivated reasoning explain failures to discern truth from falsehood. Instead, poor truth discernment is linked to a lack of careful reasoning and relevant knowledge, and to the use of familiarity and other heuristics. Furthermore, there is a substantial disconnect between what people believe and what they will share on social media. This dissociation is largely driven by inattention, rather than purposeful sharing of misinformation. As a result, effective interventions can nudge social media users to think about accuracy, and can leverage crowdsourced veracity ratings to improve social media ranking algorithms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Psychology of Fake News

Pennycook¹,

Rand²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, the classic Social Impact Theory (SIT) by Latané (37) tries to understand how to best measure the impact of people on a single individual/individuals. This theory-originating in the pre-social-media-age-gained a lot of visibility with the rise of social media services because, in particular, in the age of filter bubbles, fake news, and misinformation campaigns (38,39), it is interesting to understand how individual users on social media are socially influenced by others, for instance, in the area of their (political) attitudes. The SIT postulates three highly relevant factors called strength, immediacy, and number (of sources) to predict such a social impact.…”

Section: Why Do People Use Tiktok?mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Psychology of TikTok Use: A First Glimpse From Empirical Findings

Montag

Yang

Elhai

2021

Front. Public Health

Self Cite

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TikTok (in Chinese: DouYin; formerly known as musical.ly) currently represents one of the most successful Chinese social media applications in the world. Since its founding in September 2016, TikTok has seen widespread distribution, in particular, attracting young users to engage in viewing, creating, and commenting on “LipSync-Videos” on the app. Despite its success in terms of user numbers, psychological studies aiming at an understanding of TikTok use are scarce. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview on the small empirical literature available thus far. In particular, insights from uses and gratification theory in the realm of TikTok are highlighted, and we also discuss aspects of the TikTok platform design. Given the many unexplored research questions related to TikTok use, it is high time to strengthen research efforts to better understand TikTok use and whether certain aspects of its use result in detrimental behavioral effects. In light of user characteristics of the TikTok platform, this research is highly relevant because TikTok users are often adolescents and therefore from a group of potentially vulnerable individuals.

show abstract

“…A cognitive style is an individual's preferred approach for perceiving, processing and remembering information (Zhang and Sternberg 2006). Evidence suggests a reflexive (or 'Type 1' Evans and Stanovich 2013; Kahneman 2011; Ross et al 2016), rather than a reflective ('Type 2'), cognitive style is associated with the formation and maintenance of various implausible beliefs (Bronstein et al 2019;Greene and Murphy, this issue;Pennycook et al 2015a;Pennycook et al 2015b;Pennycook and Rand 2020;Sindermann et al 2020). A reflexively open-minded cognitive style describes a 'lazy' approach to decisionmaking, whereby a broad range of claims are uncritically accepted, irrespective of their epistemic value (Pennycook and Rand 2020).…”

Section: Cognitive Style and Implausible Beliefsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research suggests that an uncritical or ‘lazy’ style of evaluating evidence may play a role in the development and maintenance of implausible beliefs. We examine this possibility by using a quasi-experimental design to compare how low- and high-quality evidence is evaluated by those who do and do not endorse implausible claims. Seven studies conducted during 2019–2020 provided the data for this analysis (N = 746). Each of the seven primary studies presented participants with high- and/or low-quality evidence and measured implausible claim endorsement and evaluations of evidence persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and/or weight). A linear mixed-effect model was used to predict persuasiveness from the interaction between implausible claim endorsement and evidence quality. Our results showed that endorsers were significantly more persuaded by the evidence than non-endorsers, but both groups were significantly more persuaded by high-quality than low-quality evidence. The interaction between endorsement and evidence quality was not significant. These results suggest that the formation and maintenance of implausible beliefs by endorsers may result from less critical evidence evaluations rather than a failure to analyse. This is consistent with a limited rather than a lazy approach and suggests that interventions to develop analytical skill may be useful for minimising the effects of implausible claims.

show abstract

A short review on susceptibility to falling for fake political news

Cited by 76 publications

References 29 publications

The Psychology of Fake News

The Psychology of Fake News

On the Psychology of TikTok Use: A First Glimpse From Empirical Findings

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About