Neue Studie verknüpft den kognitiven Stil mit der Erkennung von Fehlinformationen von Gesundheit. In den letzten Jahren haben Social -Media -Plattformen eine weit verbreitete Exposition gegenüber Desinformation ermöglicht, einschließlich gefährlicher Ansprüche über Impfstoffe, alternative Heilmittel und Leitlinien für die öffentliche Gesundheit.
New study links cognitive style to health misinformation detection
9 Kommentare
A new study published in PLOS One sheds light on how people respond to health-related disinformation on social media. The research suggests that people who enjoy thinking critically and analytically tend to be better at identifying false or misleading content. Political affiliation also played a role in some cases, with liberals tending to perform better than conservatives at evaluating politically charged posts. But across the board, the trait known as “need for cognition” was the strongest predictor of successfully spotting disinformation.
The study was motivated by ongoing concern about the spread of false health information online. In recent years, social media platforms have enabled widespread exposure to disinformation, including dangerous claims about vaccines, alternative cures, and public health guidance. While misinformation can be shared innocently, disinformation refers to content that is intentionally deceptive.
Acting on false health claims can have serious consequences, such as avoiding effective treatments or embracing harmful remedies. During the COVID-19 pandemic, disinformation campaigns contributed to poor health decisions, with some estimates linking these beliefs to thousands of preventable deaths.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0315259
It’s almost as if being lied to by public health officials for 4-5 years causes people to distrust officials and look for alternative sources…but trying to find a credible alternative source definite takes some knowledge and work.
Is there any popular wording for these particular „cognitive styles“?
I’ll bet it would help immensely if the truly knowledgeable medical people were offering affordable care. That’s probably at least half the battle right there.
> Statistical tests showed that people with a high need for cognition had success rates around 70 percent, while those with a lower need for cognition performed closer to 60 percent.
That is surprisingly little difference! I expected cultivating habits of deliberate thinking would confer a bigger advantage.
Companies such as Meta already have internal research confirming effects like this, so the use of “enabled” comes off as a bit too passive, in my opinion.
I think the specific social media posts used in these types of studies are critical for interpreting the results and their implications.
For most posts, the true / false detection rate, and its relationship with political affiliation / need for cognition, was unsurprising.
What stood out to me, was the abysmally low false detection rate of the posts claiming Barry Gen and Lysulin OTC dietary supplements, treated / cured diabetes — using an Amazon ad as a source.
Only about ~40% of people correctly identified the posts as misinformation — the lowest detection rate for any dishonest social media post topic in the study. Only one of the two posts used showed that a „high need for cognition“ was a significant predictor of detection. Even in that case, only 62% accurately identified it as dishonest. That is just terrible.
With healthcare in the US being extremely unaffordable while also being a disconnected mess to navigate all on top of money slowly corrupting every avenue of it mixed with hyper bureaucratical complexities that slow everything down, it’s no wonder misinformation/disinformation runs rampant.
I wish we saw more of these studies that make it clear disinformation isn’t a purely right wing issue. There are similar issues with the dark triad studies that often get posted here.
Publication bias is a major issue with its tendency to reward differences found and de-emphasise lack of meaningful difference. Counter-intuitive findings dont get nearly enough airtime in these areas.