Beyond “fake news”: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines
Why is misleading partisan content believed and shared? An influential account posits that political partisanship pervasively biases reasoning, such that engaging in analytic thinking exacerbates motivated reasoning and, in turn, the acceptance of hyperpartisan content. Alternatively, it may be that...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
2021-03-01
|
Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200616b/jdm200616b.pdf |
id |
doaj-5be5f5fbc9b640eba187afa739919ecd |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-5be5f5fbc9b640eba187afa739919ecd2021-05-02T23:08:02ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752021-03-01162484504Beyond “fake news”: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlinesRobert M. RossDavid G. RandGordon PennycookWhy is misleading partisan content believed and shared? An influential account posits that political partisanship pervasively biases reasoning, such that engaging in analytic thinking exacerbates motivated reasoning and, in turn, the acceptance of hyperpartisan content. Alternatively, it may be that susceptibility to hyperpartisan content is explained by a lack of reasoning. Across two studies using different participant pools (total N = 1,973 Americans), we had participants assess true, false, and hyperpartisan news headlines taken from social media. We found no evidence that analytic thinking was associated with judging politically consistent hyperpartisan or false headlines to be accurate and unbiased. Instead, analytic thinking was, in most cases, associated with an increased tendency to distinguish true headlines from both false and hyperpartisan headlines (and was never associated with decreased discernment). These results suggest that reasoning typically helps people differentiate between low and high quality political news, rather than facilitate belief in misleading content. Because social media play an important role in the dissemination of misinformation, we also investigated willingness to share headlines on social media. We found a similar pattern whereby analytic thinking was not generally associated with increased willingness to share hyperpartisan or false headlines. Together, these results suggest a positive role for reasoning in resisting misinformation.http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200616b/jdm200616b.pdfdual-process theory fake news misinformation news media partisanshipnakeywords |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Robert M. Ross David G. Rand Gordon Pennycook |
spellingShingle |
Robert M. Ross David G. Rand Gordon Pennycook Beyond “fake news”: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines Judgment and Decision Making dual-process theory fake news misinformation news media partisanshipnakeywords |
author_facet |
Robert M. Ross David G. Rand Gordon Pennycook |
author_sort |
Robert M. Ross |
title |
Beyond “fake news”:
Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
title_short |
Beyond “fake news”:
Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
title_full |
Beyond “fake news”:
Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
title_fullStr |
Beyond “fake news”:
Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
title_full_unstemmed |
Beyond “fake news”:
Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
title_sort |
beyond “fake news”:
analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news
headlines |
publisher |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making |
series |
Judgment and Decision Making |
issn |
1930-2975 |
publishDate |
2021-03-01 |
description |
Why is misleading
partisan content believed and shared? An influential account posits that
political partisanship pervasively biases reasoning, such that engaging in
analytic thinking exacerbates motivated reasoning and, in turn, the acceptance
of hyperpartisan content. Alternatively, it may be that susceptibility to
hyperpartisan content is explained by a lack of reasoning. Across two studies
using different participant pools (total N = 1,973 Americans), we had
participants assess true, false, and hyperpartisan news headlines taken from
social media. We found no evidence that analytic thinking was associated with
judging politically consistent hyperpartisan or false headlines to be accurate
and unbiased. Instead, analytic thinking was, in most cases, associated with an
increased tendency to distinguish true headlines from both false and
hyperpartisan headlines (and was never associated with decreased discernment).
These results suggest that reasoning typically helps people differentiate
between low and high quality political news, rather than facilitate belief in
misleading content. Because social media play an important role in the
dissemination of misinformation, we also investigated willingness to share
headlines on social media. We found a similar pattern whereby analytic thinking
was not generally associated with increased willingness to share hyperpartisan
or false headlines. Together, these results suggest a positive role for
reasoning in resisting misinformation. |
topic |
dual-process theory fake news misinformation news media partisanshipnakeywords |
url |
http://journal.sjdm.org/20/200616b/jdm200616b.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT robertmross beyondfakenewsanalyticthinkingandthedetectionoffalseandhyperpartisannewsheadlines AT davidgrand beyondfakenewsanalyticthinkingandthedetectionoffalseandhyperpartisannewsheadlines AT gordonpennycook beyondfakenewsanalyticthinkingandthedetectionoffalseandhyperpartisannewsheadlines |
_version_ |
1721486741976645632 |