Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia

Matthew S. Nurse*, Robert Ross, Ozan Isler, Dirk Van Rooy

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    7 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The classical account of reasoning posits that analytic thinking weakens belief in COVID-19 misinformation. We tested this account in a demographically representative sample of 742 Australians. Participants completed a performance-based measure of analytic thinking (the Cognitive Reflection Test) and were randomized to groups in which they either rated the perceived accuracy of claims about COVID-19 or indicated whether they would be willing to share these claims. Half of these claims were previously debunked misinformation, and half were statements endorsed by public health agencies. We found that participants with higher analytic thinking levels were less likely to rate COVID-19 misinformation as accurate and were less likely to be willing to share COVID-19 misinformation. These results support the classical account of reasoning for the topic of COVID-19 misinformation and extend it to the Australian context.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)425–434
    Number of pages10
    JournalMemory & Cognition
    Volume50
    Issue number2
    Early online date27 Aug 2021
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Feb 2022

    Keywords

    • misinformation
    • COVID-19
    • cognitive reflection
    • decision-making
    • classical account

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this