Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking
暂无分享,去创建一个
Stefan M. Herzog | S. Herzog | S. van der Linden | J. Roozenbeek | R. Kurvers | Mubashir Sultan | Michael Geers | R. Maertens | Jon Roozenbeek
[1] S. Lewandowsky,et al. Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media , 2022, Science advances.
[2] S. van der Linden. Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public , 2022, Nature Medicine.
[3] J. Baron,et al. Actively open-minded thinking and the political effects of its absence , 2022 .
[4] David G. Rand,et al. Does Analytic Thinking Insulate Against Pro-Kremlin Disinformation? Evidence from Ukraine , 2021 .
[5] S. Stieger,et al. The Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST): A psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment. , 2021, Behavior research methods.
[6] S. van der Linden,et al. How Accurate Are Accuracy-Nudge Interventions? A Preregistered Direct Replication of Pennycook et al. (2020) , 2021, Psychological science.
[7] Bertram Gawronski. Partisan bias in the identification of fake news , 2021, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[8] S. van der Linden,et al. How Can Psychological Science Help Counter the Spread of Fake News? , 2021, The Spanish Journal of Psychology.
[9] H. Larson,et al. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA , 2021, Nature Human Behaviour.
[10] S. van der Linden,et al. Active inoculation boosts attitudinal resistance against extremist persuasion techniques: a novel approach towards the prevention of violent extremism , 2021, Behavioural Public Policy.
[11] S. Linden,et al. Towards psychological herd immunity: Cross-cultural evidence for two prebunking interventions against COVID-19 misinformation , 2021, Big Data Soc..
[12] Natalie C. Ebner,et al. The role of analytical reasoning and source credibility on the evaluation of real and fake full-length news articles , 2020, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.
[13] David G. Rand,et al. The Psychology of Fake News , 2021, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[14] David G. Rand,et al. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online , 2021, Nature.
[15] S. van der Linden,et al. Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited , 2020, Educational and psychological measurement.
[16] D. Rapp,et al. Misinformed and unaware? Metacognition and the influence of inaccurate information. , 2020, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[17] S. van der Linden,et al. Long-term effectiveness of inoculation against misinformation: Three longitudinal experiments. , 2020, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.
[18] Jon Roozenbeek,et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world , 2020, Royal Society Open Science.
[19] Joshua A. Tucker,et al. Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing , 2020, Social Issues and Policy Review.
[20] S. Linden,et al. Psychological Inoculation Against Fake News , 2020, The Psychology of Fake News.
[21] S. Linden,et al. Disentangling Item and Testing Effects in Inoculation Research on Online Misinformation: Solomon Revisited: , 2020 .
[22] Benjamin A. Lyons,et al. A digital media literacy intervention increases discernment between mainstream and false news in the United States and India , 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[23] D. Spiegelhalter,et al. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world , 2020, Journal of Risk Research.
[24] David G. Rand,et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response , 2020, Nature Human Behaviour.
[25] David G. Rand,et al. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention , 2020, Psychological science.
[26] S. van der Linden,et al. You are fake news: political bias in perceptions of fake news , 2020 .
[27] Lisa K. Fazio. Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news , 2020, Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review.
[28] Sarah McGrew,et al. Learning to evaluate: An intervention in civic online reasoning , 2020, Comput. Educ..
[29] S. van der Linden,et al. Good News about Bad News: Gamified Inoculation Boosts Confidence and Cognitive Immunity Against Fake News , 2020, Journal of cognition.
[30] David G. Rand,et al. Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. , 2020, Journal of personality.
[31] J. Baron. Actively open-minded thinking in politics , 2019, Cognition.
[32] David G. Rand,et al. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning , 2019, Cognition.
[33] Jon Roozenbeek,et al. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation , 2019, Palgrave Communications.
[34] Gordon Pennycook. On the belief that beliefs should change according to evidence: Implications for conspiratorial, moral, paranormal, political, religious, and science beliefs , 2019, Judgment and Decision Making.
[35] D. Watson,et al. Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. , 2019, Psychological assessment.
[36] Rita R. Silva,et al. Truth by Repetition: Explanations and Implications , 2019, Current Directions in Psychological Science.
[37] S. Nesterov,et al. How accurate is the accuracy? , 2018, Journal of Nuclear Cardiology.
[38] Sean T. H. Lee. Testing for Measurement Invariance: Does your measure mean the same thing for different participants? , 2018 .
[39] Sera L. Young,et al. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer , 2018, Front. Public Health.
[40] David G. Rand,et al. Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. General.
[41] Jay J. Van Bavel,et al. The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief , 2018, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.
[42] Annika M. Svedholm-Häkkinen,et al. Actively open-minded thinking: development of a shortened scale and disentangling attitudes towards knowledge and people , 2018 .
[43] Anna DeCastellarnau. A classification of response scale characteristics that affect data quality: a literature review , 2017, Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology.
[44] Joshua A. Tucker,et al. Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[45] Adam J. Berinsky,et al. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon , 2017, Royal Society Open Science.
[46] T. Tracey,et al. Use of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in examining measurement invariance in counseling psychology research , 2017 .
[47] A. Acquisti,et al. Beyond the Turk: Alternative Platforms for Crowdsourcing Behavioral Research , 2016 .
[48] Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al. Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test , 2016, Judgment and Decision Making.
[49] James P. Stevens,et al. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences : Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS, Sixth Edition , 2015 .
[50] Sydney E. Scott,et al. Why does the Cognitive Reflection Test (sometimes) predict utilitarian moral judgment (and other things) , 2015 .
[51] Willem E. Saris,et al. Choosing the Number of Categories in Agree–Disagree Scales , 2014 .
[52] Derek W. Meeks,et al. Physicians' diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and resource requests: a vignette study. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.
[53] K. Stanovich,et al. Myside Bias, Rational Thinking, and Intelligence , 2013 .
[54] Robert J. MacCoun,et al. The benefits of knowing what you know (and what you don’t): How calibration affects credibility , 2008 .
[55] E. Berner,et al. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. , 2008, The American journal of medicine.
[56] G. Kalton. Question‐Wording Effects in Surveys , 2006 .
[57] S. Frederick. Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .
[58] Dianne M. Finkelstein,et al. A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling , 2005, Technometrics.
[59] Michael Pfau,et al. Inoculation Theory of Resistance to Influence at Maturity: Recent Progress In Theory Development and Application and Suggestions for Future Research , 2005 .
[60] Eric R. Stone,et al. Intuitive evaluation of likelihood judgment producers: evidence for a confidence heuristic , 2004 .
[61] Richard E. Petty,et al. Source Credibility and Attitude Certainty: A Metacognitive Analysis of Resistance to Persuasion , 2004 .
[62] N. C. Silver,et al. A Monte Carlo Evaluation of Tests for Comparing Dependent Correlations , 2003, The Journal of general psychology.
[63] A. Colman,et al. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. , 2000, Acta psychologica.
[64] Stephanie Lee Sargent,et al. Effects of Photographs in News-Magazine Reports on issue Perception , 1999 .
[65] R. P. McDonald,et al. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment , 1999 .
[66] N. Schwarz. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. , 1999 .
[67] P. Bentler,et al. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .
[68] S. West,et al. The investigation of personality structure: Statistical models , 1997 .
[69] Lisa M. Schwartz,et al. The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.
[70] Tom W. Smith. THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL CONTROVERSY , 1995 .
[71] F. M. Andrews. Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey Measures: A Structural Modeling Approach , 1984 .
[72] J. Keats,et al. Test theory. , 1967, Annual review of psychology.