ArticlePloS one2024
Individual differences in sharing false political information on social media: Deliberate and accidental sharing, motivations and positive schizotypy.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
False political information-misinformation or disinformation-is widely spread on social media. Individual social media users play a large part in this. However, only a minority actively share false material. It is important to establish what sets these individuals apart from those who do not, and why they do it. Motivations for sharing may vary and are likely to differ between people who share false material unknowingly and on purpose. In this paper we consider the extent to which individual differences in personality and other variables, and motivations for sharing, are associated with the likelihood of people sharing false political information both accidentally and deliberately. In a series of four studies (Ns = 614, 563, 627, 113) we examined predictors of sharing false political information using different methodological approaches. Across the four studies, a key finding was that positive schizotypy is associated with measures of sharing false information both accidentally and deliberately. Motivations for sharing political information online were also relevant, with sharing for reasons of 'raising awareness' appearing particularly important. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
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.