Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36089997›Full record

ArticlePersonality and individual differences2023

Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers.

Álex Escolà-Gascón, Neil Dagnall, Andrew Denovan, Kenneth Drinkwater, Miriam Diez-Bosch

Abstract readNews
In one paragraph

Article in Personality and individual differences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Who Falls for Misinformation and Why?Personality & social psychology bulletin · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Personality and misinformation.Current opinion in psychology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Health Misinformation Detection: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Álex Escolà-GascónBlanquerna Faculty of Communication and International Relations, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain.
Neil DagnallPsychology Department Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Andrew DenovanUniversity of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.
Kenneth DrinkwaterPsychology Department Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Miriam Diez-BoschBlanquerna Faculty of Communication and International Relations, Ramon Llull University, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Awareness of the potential psychological significance of false news increased during the coronavirus pandemic, however, its impact on psychopathology and individual differences remains unclear. Acknowledging this, the authors investigated the psychological and psychopathological profiles that characterize fake news consumption. A total of 1452 volunteers from the general population with no previous psychiatric history participated. They responded to clinical psychopathology assessment tests. Respondents solved a fake news screening test, which allowed them to be allocated to a quasi-experimental condition: group 1 (non-fake news consumers) or group 2 (fake news consumers). Mean comparison, Bayesian inference, and multiple regression analyses were applied. Participants with a schizotypal, paranoid, and histrionic personality were ineffective at detecting fake news. They were also more vulnerable to suffer its negative effects. Specifically, they displayed higher levels of anxiety and committed more cognitive biases based on suggestibility and the Barnum Effect. No significant effects on psychotic symptomatology or affective mood states were observed. Corresponding to these outcomes, two clinical and therapeutic recommendations related to the reduction of the Barnum Effect and the reinterpretation of digital media sensationalism were made. The impact of fake news and possible ways of prevention are discussed.

Indexed as

Clinical preventionCognitive biasesFake newsIndividual differencesPseudoscientific information

Identifiers

PMID36089997
PMCPMC9450498

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.