Experiment: A total of 1452 volunteers from the general population with no previous psychiatric history participated. They responded to clinical psychopathology assessment tests. Respondents solved a fake news screening test, which allowed them to be allocated to a quasi-experimental condition: group 1 (non-fake news consumers) or group 2 (fake news consumers). (control and experimental)  

Indiana University

References for Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers

Escolà-Gascón, Álex et al. “Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers.” Personality and individual differences vol. 200 (2023): 111893. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111893

Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers

The main objective of the study was to find out whether symptom levels of the disorders analyzed increased or decreased as a function of the individual's ability to detect fake news online. In this paper the authors analyzed the symptomatic differences observed between two groups: (1) people who effectively discriminated online fake news, and (2) people who ineffectively discriminated online fake news. The symptomatic differences were based on four personality disorders, symptoms that characterize psychotic spectrum disorders (PSD), anxiety, and addiction disorders. 

The objective

The experiment

A study profiling fake news consumers found that participants with schizotypal, paranoid, and histrionic personality traits were ineffective at detecting fake news and were more vulnerable to suffering its negative effects. Specifically, they displayed higher levels of anxiety and committed more cognitive biases based on suggestibility and the Barnum effect.

Results: Personality Traits and Fake News Vulnerability

Intuitive thinking may act as a moderating variable explaining why individuals with higher schizotypy scores often fail to effectively detect fake news, as intuitive thinking correlates positively with magical beliefs. According to the dual-process theory model (e.g., Pennycook & Rand, 2019), individuals who struggle to distinguish between scientifically grounded and ungrounded information predominantly rely on cognitive reasoning characterized by intuition.

Learn Before

Related