Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39411082›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Critical thinking and misinformation vulnerability: experimental evidence from Colombia.

John A List, Lina M Ramirez, Julia Seither, Jaime Unda, Beatriz H Vallejo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

John A ListDepartment of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1740-3848
Lina M RamirezDepartment of Economics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1111-8867
Julia SeitherDepartment of Economics, Universidad del Rosario, Bogota, Cundinamarca 111711, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7079-7647
Jaime UndaEthos Behavioral Team, Bogota, Cundinamarca 110111, Colombia.
Beatriz H VallejoEthos Behavioral Team, Bogota, Cundinamarca 110111, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1523-988X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation represents a vital threat to the societal fabric of modern economies. While skills interventions to detect misinformation such as de-bunking and prebunking, media literacy, and manipulation resilience have begun to receive increased attention, evidence on de-biasing interventions and their link with misinformation vulnerability is scarce. We explore the demand for misinformation through the lens of augmenting critical thinking in an online framed field experiment during the 2022 Presidential election in Colombia. Data from roughly 2.000 individuals suggest that providing individuals with information about their own biases (obtained through a personality test) has no impact on skepticism towards news. But (additionally) showing participants a de-biasing video seems to enhance critical thinking, causing subjects to more carefully consider the truthfulness of potential misinformation.

Indexed as

critical thinkingfake newsmisinformation

Identifiers

PMID39411082
PMCPMC11475746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.