Educated Yet Fooled Who Falls For Misinformation Mirage News

Systematic meta-analysis on online misinformation with data from over 11,500 participants in 31 experiments Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development have identified who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. Their meta-analysis reveals surprising patterns on how demographic and psychological factors-including age, education, political identity, analytical thinking, and motivated reflection-affect people's ability to assess the accuracy of information. For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education. The work, published in the journal PNAS, provides important information for theory building and designing interventions. Nearly five billion people worldwide receive their news from social media, and the impact of misinformation-especially on elections-is of increasing concern.

Despite extensive research, it remains largely unclear who is particularly vulnerable to misinformation and why. "There is a lot of research on misinformation right now, but with the volume of work, it has become increasingly difficult to see the connections between different factors," explains lead author Mubashir Sultan. The doctoral candidate at the Center for Adaptive Rationality researches misinformation and decision-making behavior online. He and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis using data from the US, examining how factors such as education, age, gender, political identity, analytical thinking, partisan bias, motivated reflection, and familiarity with news have an... The researchers found no significant impact of education on people's ability to distinguish between true and false information. This contradicts the widespread belief that more educated individuals are likely to be less susceptible to misinformation, especially as higher education teaches us critical thinking.

The study also challenges assumptions about age and misinformation. While older adults are often portrayed as more vulnerable to fake news, the analysis found that they were actually better than younger adults at distinguishing between true and false headlines. Older adults were also more skeptical and tended to label headlines as false more often. Paradoxically, however, previous research has consistently shown that older adults engage with and share more misinformation online. The study distinguishes between three age groups: 18-31 years, 32-47 years and 48-88 years. Political identity also played a key role.

The meta-analysis confirmed previous research showing that individuals who identify as Republicans are more likely to fall for misinformation than those who identify as Democrats. Republicans were less accurate at assessing the veracity of news and tended to label more headlines as true, whereas Democrats were more skeptical. Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills-that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems-performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). People were more likely to believe that news that aligned with their political identity was true and to disregard news that was not aligned with their political identity-a phenomenon known as partisan bias. However, a counterintuitive finding was that individuals with higher analytical thinking were actually more susceptible to partisan bias. This tendency is known as motivated reflection, which is a cognitive process where individuals' analytical reasoning works against them to protect their pre-existing beliefs, values, or partisan affiliations.

The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. This finding underscores the danger of repeated exposure to misinformation, particularly on social media. Summary: A global study of over 66,000 people reveals that susceptibility to misinformation varies across age, gender, education, and political ideology. Participants took a test to judge whether news headlines were real or fake, and those in Generation Z, women, conservatives, and less-educated individuals were more likely to believe misinformation. Interestingly, many were accurate in assessing their own limitations—Gen Z and women, in particular, recognized their weaknesses, while those with more education tended to overestimate their skills.

These findings highlight the need for targeted media literacy efforts and proactive policies to combat the spread of fake news. A global study of more than 66,000 participants has revealed which groups of people are most susceptible to misinformation. Study participants assessed news headlines and tried to judge whether they were real or fake. On average, people had a harder time distinguishing between real and fake if they were: However, some groups were more self-aware than others about their shortcomings in spotting misinformation. Clinical relevance: Age, education, gender, and (of course) political leanings all play critical roles in who falls for fake news — and who just thinks they won’t.

We’ve debated the pros and cons of the rise of the smartphone – and the swarm of social media platforms that followed – almost since its inception. But its legacy will almost certainly be the wildfire of misinformation that its ignited. We now live in an era when the most fringe conspiracy theories have room to breathe (and spread) with a single tweet, Reddit post, or messaging app. In late 2024, as the world watched a U.S. election drowning in “fake news,” a Pew Research Center survey found that more that half of Americans (52%) admitted that “they generally find it difficult to determine what is true and what is not... It should probably come as no surprise then that there’s been a surge of support for a crackdown on misinformation.

A separate Pew survey showed that “the share of U.S. adults who say the federal government should restrict false information has risen from 39% in 2018 to 55% in 2023.” This growing ecosystem of fake news prompted a group of British and Canadian researchers to wonder who’s most susceptible to that misinformation. Who is most vulnerable to online misinformation and why? A new study offers a revealing look at how different demographic and psychological factors – such as age, education, political identity, and analytical thinking – shape individuals’ ability to assess the accuracy of news. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development analyzed data from 31 experiments conducted in the United States between 2006 and 2023.

Surprisingly, the findings do not align with many long-held assumptions about who is more likely to be duped by fake news. The study was led by Mubashir Sultan, a doctoral candidate at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development’s Center for Adaptive Rationality. Sultan and his colleagues performed an individual participant data meta-analysis, often considered the gold standard because it compiles and re-examines raw data from multiple studies rather than simply aggregating previously reported effect sizes. Systematic meta-analysis on online misinformation with data from over 11,500 participants in 31 experiments Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development have identified who is most susceptible to online misinformation and why. Their meta-analysis reveals surprising patterns on how demographic and psychological factors—including age, education, political identity, analytical thinking, and motivated reflection—affect people’s ability to assess the accuracy of information.

For instance, individuals with higher levels of education are just as likely to fall for misinformation as those with a lower level of education. The work, published in the journal PNAS, provides important information for theory building and designing interventions. Nearly five billion people worldwide receive their news from social media, and the impact of misinformation—especially on elections—is of increasing concern. Despite extensive research, it remains largely unclear who is particularly vulnerable to misinformation and why. “There is a lot of research on misinformation right now, but with the volume of work, it has become increasingly difficult to see the connections between different factors,” explains lead author Mubashir Sultan. The doctoral candidate at the Center for Adaptive Rationality researches misinformation and decision-making behavior online.

He and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis using data from the US, examining how factors such as education, age, gender, political identity, analytical thinking, partisan bias, motivated reflection, and familiarity with news have an... The researchers found no significant impact of education on people’s ability to distinguish between true and false information. This contradicts the widespread belief that more educated individuals are likely to be less susceptible to misinformation, especially as higher education teaches us critical thinking. The study also challenges assumptions about age and misinformation. While older adults are often portrayed as more vulnerable to fake news, the analysis found that they were actually better than younger adults at distinguishing between true and false headlines. Older adults were also more skeptical and tended to label headlines as false more often.

Paradoxically, however, previous research has consistently shown that older adults engage with and share more misinformation online. Political identity also played a key role. The meta-analysis confirmed previous research showing that individuals who identify as Republicans are more likely to fall for misinformation than those who identify as Democrats. Republicans were less accurate at assessing the veracity of news and tended to label more headlines as true, whereas Democrats were more skeptical. Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). People were more likely to believe that news that aligned with their political identity was true and to disregard news that was not aligned with their political identity—a phenomenon known as partisan bias.

However, a counterintuitive finding was that individuals with higher analytical thinking were actually more susceptible to partisan bias. This tendency is known as motivated reflection, which is a cognitive process where individuals’ analytical reasoning works against them to protect their pre-existing beliefs, values, or partisan affiliations. The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. This finding underscores the danger of repeated exposure to misinformation, particularly on social media. Take part in our online survey at the end of your visit and share your valuable experiences and opinions.

Duration: 7-10 min. Feb 5, 2025, 12:32:17 PM Nicole Siller , Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung Nearly five billion people worldwide receive their news from social media, and the impact of misinformation—especially on elections—is of increasing concern. Despite extensive research, it remains largely unclear who is particularly vulnerable to misinformation and why. “There is a lot of research on misinformation right now, but with the volume of work, it has become increasingly difficult to see the connections between different factors,” explains lead author Mubashir Sultan. The doctoral candidate at the Center for Adaptive Rationality researches misinformation and decision-making behavior online.

He and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis using data from the US, examining how factors such as education, age, gender, political identity, analytical thinking, partisan bias, motivated reflection, and familiarity with news have an... The researchers found no significant impact of education on people’s ability to distinguish between true and false information. This contradicts the widespread belief that more educated individuals are likely to be less susceptible to misinformation, especially as higher education teaches us critical thinking. The study also challenges assumptions about age and misinformation. While older adults are often portrayed as more vulnerable to fake news, the analysis found that they were actually better than younger adults at distinguishing between true and false headlines. Older adults were also more skeptical and tended to label headlines as false more often.

Paradoxically, however, previous research has consistently shown that older adults engage with and share more misinformation online. Political identity also played a key role. The meta-analysis confirmed previous research showing that individuals who identify as Republicans are more likely to fall for misinformation than those who identify as Democrats. Republicans were less accurate at assessing the veracity of news and tended to label more headlines as true, whereas Democrats were more skeptical. Individuals with higher analytical thinking skills—that is, who are better at logically evaluating information, identifying patterns, and systematically solving problems—performed better overall and were more skeptical (tending to classify news as false). People were more likely to believe that news that aligned with their political identity was true and to disregard news that was not aligned with their political identity—a phenomenon known as partisan bias.

However, a counterintuitive finding was that individuals with higher analytical thinking were actually more susceptible to partisan bias. This tendency is known as motivated reflection, which is a cognitive process where individuals’ analytical reasoning works against them to protect their pre-existing beliefs, values, or partisan affiliations. The strongest effect in the meta-analysis was the influence of familiarity. When participants reported having already seen a news headline, they were more likely to believe it was true. This finding underscores the danger of repeated exposure to misinformation, particularly on social media. To ensure the highest reliability, the researchers conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis—considered the gold standard in the field.

People Also Search

• Educated Yet Fooled: Who Falls for Misinformation? - Mirage News
• Educated but easily fooled? Who falls for misinformation and why
• Who Falls for Fake News? Study Reveals Surprising Patterns
• Global Study Reveals Who's Most Vulnerable to Misinformation
• Who falls for fake news? New study challenges what we thought
• News - Research in Germany
• Who is most likely to fall for fake news? - psych.ubc.ca
• Phys.Org: Educated but easily fooled? Who falls for misinformation and ...
• Beware of fake news! Study shows why highly educated people fall victim ...