ArticleScientific reports2024
The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Crisis pregnancy center messaging in the post-Dobbs era.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Combined signals of scientific and social consensus best mobilize action on societal challenges even if government and industry oppose.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- How Heuristic Credibility Cues Shape Perceived Credibility on Social Media: A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Stigma, Perceptions, and Parental Responses to Children's Head Lice Infestation in Greece.The Journal of school health · 2026Article
- The differential consequences of correcting misinformation for high and low credibility sources.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- You sure about that? The effects of textual and image-based Skepticism on belief in dubious social-media claims.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2026Article
- Susceptibility to digital health misinformation: a multi-level narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Media exposure, perceived stereotype accessibility, and national image formation: experimental and short-term panel evidence from Chinese perceptions of Germany.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Analysis of the Factors Influencing the Intention to Share Information: Word-of-Mouth About Fast-Food Restaurants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Bypassing as a non-confrontational influence strategy.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
- Quality and reliability of Alzheimer's disease videos on Douyin and Bilibili: A cross-sectional content analysis study.Digital healthArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although misinformation exposure takes place within a social context, significant conclusions have been drawn about misinformation susceptibility through studies that largely examine judgements in a social vacuum. Bridging the gap between social influence research and the cognitive science of misinformation, we examine the mechanisms through which social context impacts misinformation susceptibility across 5 experiments (N = 20,477). We find that social cues only impact individual judgements when they influence perceptions of wider social consensus, and that source similarity only biases news consumers when the source is high in credibility. Specifically, high and low engagement cues ('likes') reduced misinformation susceptibility relative to a control, and endorsement cues increased susceptibility, but discrediting cues had no impact. Furthermore, political ingroup sources increased susceptibility if the source was high in credibility, but political outgroup sources had no effect relative to a control. This work highlights the importance of studying cognitive processes within a social context, as judgements of (mis)information change when embedded in the social world. These findings further underscore the need for multifaceted interventions that take account of the social context in which false information is processed to effectively mitigate the impact of misinformation on the public.
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.