Classical reasoning theories portray deliberative reasoning as being responsible for correcting faulty intuitions and predict that people who deliberate more are less likely to believe false content and have better ability to discern between true and false information, regardless of political concordance. More evidence supports classical reasoning (compared to deliverative reasoning)

Classical reasoning and fake news

This account of analytic thinking posits that analytic thinking leads to accurate beliefs about the validity of a headline, whether or not it aligns with one's beliefs. 

New York University

- Classical Reasoning Account 
- Motivated System. 2Reasoning (MS2R) 

Theories of Analytic Thinking Regarding Fake News

Pennycook, G. & Rand, D. G (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, pgs 39-50.

Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning (Pennycook & Rand, 2019)

A motivated reasoning account that posits that deliberation causes people to believe information (real or fake) that aligns with their political views. This theory hypothesizes that there is a positive association between analytic thinking and perceived accuracy of headlines that align with one's beliefs. 

Learn Before

Related

Learn After