The Role of Analytical Reasoning and Source Credibility on the Evaluation of Real and Fake Full-Length News Articles

Abstract

Aim: Previous research has focused on accuracy associated with real and fake news presented in the form of news headlines only which does not capture the rich context news is frequently encountered in real life. Additionally, while the impact of analytical reasoning on news evaluation accuracy has commonly been examined, the impact of news source credibility on real and fake news detection is understudied. To address these research gaps, this project examined the role of analytical reasoning and news source credibility on evaluation of real and fake full-length news story articles. The project considered both accuracy and perceived credibility ratings as outcome variables, thus qualifying previous work focused solely on news detection accuracy. Method: We conducted two independent but parallel studies, with Study 2 as a direct replication of Study 1, employing the same design but in a larger sample (Study 1: N = 292 vs. Study 2: N = 357). In both studies, participants viewed 12 full-length news articles (6 real, 6 fake), followed by prompts to evaluate each article’s veracity and credibility. Participants were randomly assigned to view articles with a credible or non-credible source and completed the Cognitive Reflection Test as well as short demographic questions.Findings: Consistent in both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with greater fake news accuracy, while analytical reasoning was not associated with real news accuracy. In addition, in both studies, higher analytical reasoning was associated with lower perceived credibility for fake news, while analytical reasoning was not associated with perceived credibility for real news. Furthermore, lower analytical reasoning was associated with greater accuracy for real (but not fake) news from credible compared to non-credible sources, with this effect only detected in Study 2. Conclusions: The novel findings generated in this research are discussed in light of classical vs. naturalistic accounts of decision-making as well as cognitive processes underlying news articles evaluation. The results extend previous findings that analytical reasoning contributes to fake news detection to full-length news articles. Furthermore, news-related cues such as the credibility of the source systematically affected discrimination ability between real and fake news.

The Psychology of Fake News

“…People who are more reflective (Box 3) are less likely to believe false news contentand are better at discerning between truth and falsehoodregardless of whether the news is consistent or inconsistent with their partisanship [20,26,34,35] (Figure 1A). The same pattern is evident with respect to discernment between biased and misleading hyperpartisan news and true (mainstream) news [35] and when judging full news stories as opposed to just headlines [36], and using measures beyond the Cognitive Reflection Test (Figure 1), such as thinking disposition questionnaires [34] and the Berlin Numeracy Test [35]. Belief in fake news is also associated with delusionality [34], dogmatism [34], religious fundamentalism [34], bullshit receptivity [37], and overclaiming [37] (all factors associated with analytic thinking; Box 3).…”

Fake news: Why do we believe it?

“…In experimental studies, people who have analytic thinking versus those who rely on intuitive thinking are less likely to believe fake news headlines or full-text news [31] , [32] . Critical thinking is also protective against fake news [33] as well as “crystallized intelligence including lexical knowledge, general information, information on culture” [34] .…”

A framework for understanding reasoning errors: From fake news to climate change and beyond

“…In fact, a recent cross-cultural investigation used the same true and false news headlines about COVID-19 (with translations as appropriate) to investigate this issue across 16 countries and found evidence in every single country that people who are more reflective are better at distinguishing between true and false news (Arechar et al, 2022). People who are more reflective are also better able to distinguish between full news stories that are true versus false (as opposed to merely headlines, as above) (Pehlivanoglu et al, 2021). Analytic thinking is also associated with a greater ability to distinguish between true content and misleading (but not false) hyper-partisan content (Ross et al, 2021) as well as having fewer political misbeliefs in general (Sanchez & Dunning, 2021) (in both cases, regardless of political consistency).…”