A meta-analysis conducted by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development sheds light on who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. The study, which synthesized data from 31 experiments involving over 11500 participants and was published on November 2024 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, challenges common assumptions about education, age, and political identity. The findings provide critical insights for combating misinformation in an era where nearly five billion people rely on social media for news.
A Systemic Meta-Analysis of Data From Over 11500 Participants in 31 Experiments Uncovered the Demographic and Psychological Factors of Misinformation
Background
Misinformation and false information spread across the internet and social media platforms. It influences public opinions and behaviors. These information can appear in various forms like news articles, graphics or images, and videos. The rise of digital platforms has made it easier for misinformation to spread rapidly, shaping public opinion and decision-making.
Researchers M. Sultan et al. conducted a systematic meta-analysis to examine who is most susceptible to misinformation. They analyzed 31 studies covering over 11500 participants and used individual participant data meta-analysis to evaluate raw data from each study. This approach further enhances the reliability and power of their findings.
Critical Findings
Note that the study distinguished between two aspects of misinformation susceptibility. One is the ability to tell true news from false news. The other is response bias, which refers to the tendency to classify news as either true or false. The results reveal surprising patterns.
Older adults aged between 48 and 88 demonstrated better discrimination ability than younger adults aged 18 to 31. These participants also exhibited a false-news bias. This means they tend to be more skeptical or unconvinced and often label headlines as false.
Democrats are also more skeptical and showed higher discrimination ability than Republican participants. They performed better at distinguishing between fake and real news. Republicans were more likely to label headlines as true. This is called true-news bias.
Moreover, it is interesting to note that education level had no significant impact on discrimination ability. This contradicts the prevailing assumption that higher education or having undergraduate and post-graduate degrees equates to better critical thinking skills in this context.
Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills had better discrimination ability but were also more susceptible to partisan bias or motivated reflection. This means they used their analytical skills to defend pre-existing beliefs rather than objectively evaluating information.
Participants were also more likely to believe content headlines aligned with their political ideology or established beliefs. Familiarity with a headline also increases the likelihood of labeling it as true. This highlights the danger of repeated exposure to misinformation.
Takeaways
The results underscore the complexity of misinformation susceptibility. For instance, while older adults are better at discerning misinformation, they share more fake news online—a paradox suggesting that discrimination ability alone does not prevent sharing. The study also highlights the need for interventions tailored to specific groups. Remember the following:
• Older adults and analytical thinkers have better accuracy. People in these groups are more skilled at distinguishing between true and false news. Their ability to critically evaluate information helps them make more accurate judgments.
• Skepticism increases with age and analytical thinking. Older adults and those with strong analytical thinking skills tend to label more news as false. This cautious approach reduces belief in misinformation but may also lead to rejecting true news.
• Political identity shapes misinformation susceptibility. Democrats perform better at assessing news accuracy. Republicans tend to classify news as true. This difference suggests that political bias influences how people evaluate information.
• Higher analytical thinking amplifies partisan bias. People with strong analytical skills tend to trust news that aligns with their political beliefs. This motivated reflection makes them more resistant to information that contradicts their views.
• Familiarity increases belief in misinformation. Participants were more likely to believe the news they had seen before, even if it was false. Repeated exposure makes misinformation seem more credible, increasing the risk of false beliefs spreading.
• Displaying sources improves accuracy judgments. Showing the source of a news story helps people assess its credibility. Republicans benefit more from this. This can be a helpful approach in reducing susceptibility to false information.
Hence, considering the aforementioned, there should be intervention programs of information and digital literacy training tailored for younger adults. There should also be specific strategies aimed at mitigating partisan bias. Highly analytical individuals will benefit from this. Source displays for news headlines improve the discrimination ability of conservatives.
Targeted inventions should also account for cognitive biases and political identity. Educating people about the effects of familiarity and partisan bias can help reduce susceptibility. Programs should focus on skepticism training and critical evaluation of news sources. Social media platforms must also consider how their algorithms contribute to misinformation spread.
FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE
- Sultan, M., Tump, A. N., Ehmann, N., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Hertwig, R., Gollwitzer, A., and Kurvers, R. H. J. M. 2024. “Susceptibility to Online Misinformation: A Systematic Meta-Analysis of Demographic and Psychological Factors. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 121(47). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 1073/pnas.2409329121