Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning

Cognition

Volumn 188, Issue , 2019, Pages 39-50

  Pennycook, Gordon ^a   Rand, David G ^a,b  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic thinking; Cognitive reflection test; Dual process theory; Fake news; Intuition; News media; Social media

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; COGNITIVE BIAS; EDUCATION; FEMALE; GENDER; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IDEOLOGY; LOGIC; MALE; MOTIVATION; NORMAL HUMAN; POLITICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL MEDIA; THINKING; DECEPTION; INTUITION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PROBLEM SOLVING;

ADULT; DECEPTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTUITION; MALE; MOTIVATION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; POLITICS; PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 85048712299     PISSN: 00100277     EISSN: 18737838     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election. NBER Working Paper No. 23098. Retrieved from < http://www.nber.org/papers/w23089>.
2. Bakshy, E., Messing, S., Adamic, L., Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348 (2015), 1130–1132.
3. Ballarini, C., & Sloman, S. A. (2017). Reasons and the “Motivated Numeracy Effect.”In Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meetiing of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 1580–1585).
4. Barr, N., Pennycook, G., Stolz, J.A., Fugelsang, J.A., The brain in your pocket: Evidence that Smartphones are used to supplant thinking. Computers in Human Behavior 48 (2015), 473–480, 10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.029.
5. Beck, J., This article won't change your mind: The fact on why facts alone can't fight false beliefs. The Atlantic, 2017 Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/.
6. Berinsky, A.A.J., Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science 47 (2017), 241–246, 10.1017/S0007123415000186.
7. Bialek, M., Pennycook, G., The cognitive reflection test is robust to multiple exposures. Behavior Research Methods, 2017, 10.3758/s13428-017-0963-x.
8. Calvert, D. (2017). The Psychology Behind Fake News. Retrieved August 2, 2017, from < https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/the-psychology-behind-fake-news>.
9. Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Jacobs, P., Cowtan, K., Green, S., Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PloS One, 12(5), 2017, e0175799, 10.1371/journal.pone.0175799.
10. Coppock, A. (2016). Generalizing from Survey Experiments Conducted on Mechanical Turk: A Replication Approach. Retrieved from < https://alexandercoppock.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/coppock_generalizability2.pdf>.
11. De Neys, W., Bias and conflict: A case for logical intuitions. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7:1 (2012), 28–38, 10.1177/1745691611429354.
12. Ditto, P.H., Liu, B.S., Clark, C.J., Wojcik, S.P., Chen, E.E., Grady, R.H., Zinger, J.F., At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2018, 10.1007/s10551-015-2769-z.For.
13. Drummond, C., Fischhoff, B., Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (2017), 9587–9592, 10.1073/pnas.1704882114.
14. Ecker, U., Hogan, J., Lewandowsky, S., Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction?. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6 (2017), 185–192.
15. Evans, J.S.B.T., In two minds: Dual-process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7:10 (2003), 454–459, 10.1016/j.tics.2003.08.012.
16. Evans, J.S.B.T., Stanovich, K.E., Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8:3 (2013), 223–241, 10.1177/1745691612460685.
17. Faris, R. M., Roberts, H., Etling, B., Bourassa, N., Zuckerman, E., & Benkler, Y. (2017). Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Retrieved from < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3019414>.
18. Fisher, M., Goddu, M.K.M., Keil, F.C.F., Searching for explanations: How the Internet inflates estimates of internal knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144:3 (2015), 674–687, 10.1037/xge0000070.
19. Fiske, S., Taylor, S., Social cognition: From brains to culture. 2nd ed., 2013, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
20. Frederick, S., Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:4 (2005), 25–42, 10.1257/089533005775196732.
21. Gervais, W.M., Override the controversy: Analytic thinking predicts endorsement of evolution. Cognition 142 (2015), 312–321, 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.011.
22. Gervais, W.M., Norenzayan, A., Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science 336:6080 (2012), 493–496, 10.1126/science.1215647.
23. Gignac, G.E., Szodorai, E.T., Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016), 74–78, 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069.
24. Guess, A., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2018). Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. [Working Paper]. Retrieved from < http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/fake-news-2016.pdf>.
25. Haidt, J., The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. 2012, Paragon, New York, NY.
26. Haigh, M., Has the standard cognitive reflection test become a victim of its own success?. Advances in Cognitive Psychology 12:3 (2016), 145–149, 10.5709/acp-0193-5.
27. Jost, J.T., Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology 38:2 (2017), 167–208, 10.1111/pops.12407.
28. Kahan, D., Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology 36 (2015), 1–43, 10.1111/pops.12244/full.
29. Kahan, D.M., Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8:4 (2013), 407–424, 10.2139/ssrn.2182588.
30. Kahan, D.M., Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition. SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017, 10.2139/ssrn.2973067.
31. Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Braman, D., Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14:2 (2011), 147–174, 10.1080/13669877.2010.511246.
32. Kahan, D. M., & Peters, E. (2017). Rumors of the “Nonreplication” of the “Motivated Numeracy Effect” are Greatly Exaggerated. Retrieved from < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3026941>.
33. Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D., Mandel, G., The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2:10 (2012), 732–735, 10.1038/nclimate1547.
34. Kahan, D., Peters, E., Dawson, E., Slovic, P., Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy 1:1 (2017), 54–86.
35. Kahneman, D., Thinking, fast and slow. 2011, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.
36. Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Mothes, C., Polavin, N., Confirmation bias, ingroup bias, and negativity bias in selective exposure to political information. Communication Research, 9365021771959, 2017, 10.1177/0093650217719596.
37. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480).
38. Krupnikov, Y., Levine, A., Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1 (2014), 59–80.
39. Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, J., Berinsky, A., Greenhill, K., Metzger, M., Zittrain, J., The science of fake news. Science 9 (2018), 1094–1096.
40. Mercier, H., Sperber, D., Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34:2 (2011), 57–74, 10.1017/S0140525X10000968.
41. Mullinix, K., Leeper, T., Druckman, J., Freese, J., The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2015), 109–138.
42. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior 32:2 (2010), 303–330, 10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2.
43. Pennycook, G., A perspective on the theoretical foundation of dual-process models. De Neys, W., (eds.) Dual Process Theory 2.0, 2017, Psychology Press, 34.
44. Pennycook, G., The new reflectionism in cognitive psychology: Why reason matters. 2018, Routledge, New York, NY.
45. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T.D., Rand, D.G., Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2018 Retrieved from < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246>.
46. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Barr, N., Koehler, D.J., Fugelsang, J.A., The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values. Thinking & Reasoning 20:2 (2014), 188–214, 10.1080/13546783.2013.865000.
47. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Barr, N., Koehler, D.J., Fugelsang, J.A., On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making 10:6 (2015), 549–563, 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279.
48. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A.J.A., Seli, P., Koehler, D.J.D.J., Fugelsang, J.A.J.A., Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition 123:3 (2012), 335–346, 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003.
49. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J.A., Koehler, D.J., Fugelsang, J.A., Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition?. Behavior Research Methods 48 (2016), 341–348, 10.3758/s13428-015-0576-1.
50. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J.A., Koehler, D.J., Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24:6 (2015), 425–432, 10.1177/0963721415604610.
51. Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J.A., Koehler, D.J., What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement. Cognitive Psychology 80 (2015), 34–72, 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.05.001.
52. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. (2017, December 8). The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Stories Increases Perceived Accuracy of Stories Without Warnings. Retrieved from < https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3035384>.
53. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2018a, June 10). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Available at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id3023545.
54. Pennycook, G., Rand, D.G., Cognitive reflection and the 2016 US presidential election. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2018 Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3110929 .
55. Pennycook, G., Ross, R.M., Commentary on: Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2016, 9, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532.
56. Pennycook, G., Ross, R.M., Koehler, D.J., Fugelsang, J.A., Atheists and agnostics are more reflective than religious believers: Four empirical studies and a meta-analysis. Plos One, 11(4), 2016, e0153039, 10.1371/journal.pone.0153039.
57. Piaget, J., The moral judgment of the child. 1932, Routledge Kegan Paul, London, UK.
58. Rand, D., Tomlin, D., Bear, A., Ludvig, E., Cohen, J., Cyclical population dynamics of automatic versus controlled processing: An evolutionary pendulum. Retrieved from Psychological Review 124 (2017), 626–642 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972420.
59. Redlawsk, D.P., Civettini, A.J.W., Emmerson, K.M., The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “Get It”?. Political Psychology 31:4 (2010), 563–593, 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x.
60. Shane, S. (2017). From Headline to Photograph, a Fake News Masterpiece. New York Times. Retrieved from < https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/fake-news-hillary-clinton-cameron-harris.html>.
61. Shenhav, A., Rand, D.G., Greene, J.D., Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General 141:3 (2012), 423–428, 10.1037/a0025391.
62. Shtulman, A., & McCallum, K. (2014). Cognitive Reflection Predicts Science Understanding. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 2937–2942).
63. Silverman, C., Strapagiel, L., Shaban, H., Hall, E., Hyperpartisan Facebook pages are publishing false and misleading information at an alarming rate. Buzzfeed News, 2016 Retrieved from < https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis>.
64. Sinayev, A., Peters, E., Cognitive reflection vs. calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology 6 (2015), 1–16, 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00532.
65. Singal, J. (2017). This is a great psychological framework for understanding how fake news spreads. New York Magazine. Retrieved from < http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2017/01/a-great-psychological-framework-for-understanding-fake-news.html>.
66. Stanovich, K., Who is rational?: Studies of individual differences in reasoning. 1999, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
67. Stanovich, K., The robot's rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. 2005, Chicago University Press, Chicago, IL.
68. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23:5 (2000), 645–665, 10.1017/S0140525X00003435.
69. Stanovich, K.E., West, R.F., Toplak, M.E., The complexity of developmental predictions from dual process models. Developmental Review 31:2–3 (2011), 103–118, 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.003.
70. Strickland, A.A., Taber, C.S., Lodge, M., Motivated reasoning and public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 36:6 (2011), 89–122, 10.1215/03616878-.
71. Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U.S., Furnham, A., Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition 133:3 (2014), 572–585, 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006.
72. Swire, B., Ecker, U.K.H., Lewandowsky, S., The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2017, 10.1037/xlm0000422.
73. Taub, A. (2017). The Real Story About Fake News Is Partisanship. The New York Times. Retrieved from < https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/11/upshot/the-real-story-about-fake-news-is-partisanship.html>.
74. Thomson, K.S., Oppenheimer, D.M., Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making 11:1 (2016), 99–113.
75. Tomlin, D., Rand, D., Ludvig, E., Cohen, J., The evolution and devolution of cognitive control: The costs of deliberation in a competitive world. Scientific Reports, 5, 2015, 11002.
76. Toplak, M.E., West, R.F., Stanovich, K.E., Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning 20:2 (2014), 147–168, 10.1080/13546783.2013.844729.
77. Toupo, D., Strogatz, S., Cohen, J., Evolutionary game dynamics of controlled and automatic decision-making. Chaos, 25, 2015, 73120, 10.1063/1.4927488.
78. Trippas, D., Pennycook, G., Verde, M.F., Handley, S.J., Better but still biased: Analytic cognitive style and belief bias. Thinking & Reasoning 21 (2015), 431–455.
79. Van Bavel, J.J., Pereira, A., The partisan brain: An Identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2018.
80. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S., The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:6380 (2018), 1146–1151, 10.1126/science.aap9559.
81. Ward, A., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., Bos, M.W., Brain drain: The mere presence of one's own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association of Consumer Research, 2017, 10.1086/691462.
82. Wickens, T., Elementary signal detection theory. 2002, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
83. Yilmaz, O., Saribay, S.A., An attempt to clarify the link between cognitive style and political ideology: A non-western replication and extension. Judgment and Decision Making 11:3 (2016), 287–300, 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
84. Yilmaz, O., Saribay, S.A., Analytic thought training promotes liberalism on contextualized (but not stable) political opinions. Social Psychological and Personality Science 8 (2017), 789–795, 10.1177/1948550616687092.
85. Yilmaz, O., Saribay, S.A., The relationship between cognitive style and political orientation depends on the measures used. Retrieved from Judgment and Decision Making 12:2 (2017), 140–147 http://search.proquest.com/docview/1883834797?pq-origsite=gscholar.