Trial reportMemory & cognition2022
Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia.
Trial report in Memory & cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-supported real-time news evaluation reveals effects of time constraint on misinformation discernment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Inoculation reduces social media engagement with affectively polarized content in the UK and US.Communications psychology · 2025Article
- Question framing affects accurate-inaccurate discrimination in responses to sharing questions, but not in responses to accuracy questions.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- What motivates individuals to share information with governments when adopting health technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic?BMC public health · 2023Article
- How to activate intuitive and reflective thinking in behavior research? A comprehensive examination of experimental techniques.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Social and moral psychology of COVID-19 across 69 countries.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2023Review
- Understanding the role of fear of missing out and deficient self-regulation in sharing of deepfakes on social media: Evidence from eight countries.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Social Media News Use and COVID-19 Misinformation Engagement: Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Infodemic and fake news - A comprehensive overview of its global magnitude during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021: A scoping review.International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR · 2022Article
- I Think I Should Get Vaccinated, I Feel I Should Not. Individual Differences in Information Processing and Vaccination Behavior (COVID-19).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.