Beyond “fake news”: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines

• Published in: Judgment and decision making Vol. 16; no. 2; pp. 484 - 504
• Main Authors: Ross, Robert M., Rand, David G., Pennycook, Gordon
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Tallahassee Society for Judgment and Decision Making 01.03.2021; Cambridge University Press
• Subjects: Bias; Clinton, Hillary Rodham; Cognition & reasoning; Disinformation; dual-process theory; fake news; False information; misinformation; News media; Partisanship; partisanshipnakeywords; Publishing industry; Social media; Social networks; Trump, Donald; United States
• ISSN: 1930-2975; 1930-2975
• DOI: 10.1017/S1930297500008640

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.