ArticlePloS one2021
Determinants of individuals' belief in fake news: A scoping review determinants of belief in fake news.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Spotting false news and doubting true news: a systematic review and meta-analysis of news judgements.Nature human behaviour · 2025Pooled it
- Psychological factors contributing to the creation and dissemination of fake news among social media users: a systematic review.BMC psychology · 2024Pooled it
- A prosocial fake news intervention with durable effects.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- News is not made for me: A novel scale for measuring audience alienation from news and its outcomes.Journalism (London, England) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Gratifications on Fake News Sharing Among Chinese Social Media Users and Its Mechanisms.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beliefs in Misinformation About COVID-19 and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine Are Linked: Evidence From a Nationally Representative Survey Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Anti-masking Posts on Instagram: Content Analysis During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Safety and health at work · 2025Article
- A Survey on the Criteria Used to Judge (Fake) News in Italian Population.Brain and behavior · 2025Article
- Article
- Understanding how users identify health misinformation in short videos: an integrated analysis using PLS-SEM and fsQCA.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Softly empowering a prosocial expert in the family: lasting effects of a counter-misinformation intervention in an informational autocracy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Determinants of multimodal fake review generation in China's E-commerce platforms.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Fake news research trends, linkages to generative artificial intelligence and sustainable development goals.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Canadians' knowledge of cancer risk factors and belief in cancer myths.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society.PloS one · 2024Article
- Who shares fake news on social media? Evidence from vaccines and infertility claims in sub-Saharan Africa.PloS one · 2024Article
- Navigating persuasive strategies in online health misinformation: An interview study with older adults on misinformation management.PloS one · 2024Article
- Darkweb research: Past, present, and future trends and mapping to sustainable development goals.Heliyon · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProliferation of misinformation in digital news environments can harm society in a number of ways, but its dangers are most acute when citizens believe that false news is factually accurate. A recent wave of empirical research focuses on factors that explain why people fall for the so-called fake news. In this scoping review, we summarize the results of experimental studies that test different predictors of individuals' belief in misinformation.
methodsThe review is based on a synthetic analysis of 26 scholarly articles. The authors developed and applied a search protocol to two academic databases, Scopus and Web of Science. The sample included experimental studies that test factors influencing users' ability to recognize fake news, their likelihood to trust it or intention to engage with such content. Relying on scoping review methodology, the authors then collated and summarized the available evidence.
resultsThe study identifies three broad groups of factors contributing to individuals' belief in fake news. Firstly, message characteristics-such as belief consistency and presentation cues-can drive people's belief in misinformation. Secondly, susceptibility to fake news can be determined by individual factors including people's cognitive styles, predispositions, and differences in news and information literacy. Finally, accuracy-promoting interventions such as warnings or nudges priming individuals to think about information veracity can impact judgements about fake news credibility. Evidence suggests that inoculation-type interventions can be both scalable and effective. We note that study results could be partly driven by design choices such as selection of stimuli and outcome measurement.
conclusionsWe call for expanding the scope and diversifying designs of empirical investigations of people's susceptibility to false information online. We recommend examining digital platforms beyond Facebook, using more diverse formats of stimulus material and adding a comparative angle to fake news research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.