Eine kurze Botschaft, die aktiv aufgeschlossenes Denken fördert, kann als kognitiver Impfstoff dienen, wodurch die Anfälligkeit für gefälschte Nachrichten verringert wird und weniger wahrscheinlich online Fehlinformationen teilen kann. Dieser Denkstil beinhaltet die Bereitschaft, Ihre Ansichten zu überdenken, ein Überbewusstsein zu vermeiden und die Beweise fair abzuwägen.
A simple cognitive vaccine can make you more resistant to misinformation
2 Kommentare
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
Norm-enhanced prebunking for actively open-minded thinking indirectly improves misinformation discernment and reduces conspiracy beliefs
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210312500099X
From the linked article:
A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology provides evidence that a **brief message promoting actively open-minded thinking can serve as a cognitive vaccine, reducing susceptibility to believing false information**. The findings suggest that strengthening certain cognitive habits can help individuals better distinguish real from fake news and become less likely to share misinformation online.
A growing body of research has pointed to the importance of cognitive styles in shaping how people evaluate information. In particular, a thinking style known as “actively open-minded thinking” has been identified as a key predictor of resistance to misinformation. This approach emphasizes a willingness to revise one’s beliefs, consider opposing arguments, and avoid overconfidence in one’s own views.
“We wanted to test whether we could target something deeper: the cognitive style of **actively open-minded thinking. This style—being willing to reconsider your views, avoid overconfidence, and weigh evidence fairly**—has consistently been linked to lower susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. By using a logic-based inoculation approach, we aimed to strengthen this thinking style itself, which could provide broader and longer-lasting protection across different contexts.”
The problem is, regardless how open your level of thinking, there is too much evidence for most people to „weigh fairly“ on the vast majority of issues. We need people to get comfortable deferring to minimally biased experts (e.g. Fauci and Powell) approved by others within their own field in almost all policy decisions. And electing politicians who listen to these kinds of people.