Display options
Cite
Nurse MS, Ross RM, Isler O, et al. Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia. Mem Cognit. 2021;doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5.
Nurse, M. S., Ross, R. M., Isler, O., & Van Rooy, D. (2021). Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia. Memory & cognition, . https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5
Nurse, Matthew S, et al. "Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia." Memory & cognition vol. (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5
Nurse MS, Ross RM, Isler O, Van Rooy D. Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia. Mem Cognit. 2021 Aug 27; doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5. Epub 2021 Aug 27. PMID: 34453286; PMCID: PMC8395380.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Mem Cognit. 2021 Aug 27; doi: 10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5. Epub 2021 Aug 27.

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

Memory & cognition

Matthew S Nurse, Robert M Ross, Ozan Isler, Dirk Van Rooy

Affiliations

  1. Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. [email protected].
  2. Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
  3. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology - QUT, Brisbane, Australia.
  4. Research School of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

PMID: 34453286 PMCID: PMC8395380 DOI: 10.3758/s13421-021-01219-5

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.

© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Keywords: COVID-19; classical account; cognitive reflection; decision-making; misinformation

References

  1. J Gen Psychol. 2003 Apr;130(2):149-68 - PubMed
  2. Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):460-471 - PubMed
  3. Prog Disaster Sci. 2020 Dec;8:100119 - PubMed
  4. PLoS One. 2020 Feb 10;15(2):e0228882 - PubMed
  5. Psychol Sci. 2020 Jul;31(7):770-780 - PubMed
  6. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Oct 14;7(10):201199 - PubMed
  7. Curr Opin Psychol. 2020 Dec;36:44-48 - PubMed
  8. Am J Psychol. 1987 Fall-Winter;100(3-4):441-71 - PubMed
  9. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e19659 - PubMed
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 7;23(1):e23805 - PubMed
  11. BMC Med. 2020 Mar 18;18(1):89 - PubMed
  12. Psychol Methods. 2007 Dec;12(4):399-413 - PubMed
  13. Mem Cognit. 2011 Oct;39(7):1275-89 - PubMed
  14. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2021 Jun 28;:1461672211023652 - PubMed
  15. Soc Sci Med. 2019 Nov;240:112552 - PubMed
  16. Nature. 2021 Apr;592(7855):590-595 - PubMed
  17. Behav Res Methods. 2018 Oct;50(5):1953-1959 - PubMed
  18. Cognition. 2019 Jul;188:39-50 - PubMed
  19. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020 Apr 2;41:433-451 - PubMed
  20. Cogn Psychol. 2015 Aug;80:34-72 - PubMed
  21. Curr Psychol. 2020 Jun 29;:1-10 - PubMed
  22. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Aug;149(8):1608-1613 - PubMed
  23. J Health Psychol. 2019 Feb;24(2):219-228 - PubMed
  24. J Health Psychol. 2020 Oct 4;:1359105320962266 - PubMed
  25. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2521-2526 - PubMed
  26. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):223-41 - PubMed
  27. Psychometrika. 2009 Mar;74(1):107-120 - PubMed
  28. Psychol Med. 2021 Jul;51(10):1763-1769 - PubMed
  29. Psychol Sci. 2021 Jul;32(7):1169-1178 - PubMed

Publication Types