A Survey on the Criteria Used to Judge (Fake) News in Italian Population.

Fabiana Battista, Tiziana Lanciano, Antonietta Curci

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Fabiana BattistaDepartment of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4086-739X

Tiziana LancianoDepartment of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6533-1052

Antonietta CurciDepartment of Education, Psychology, Communication, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-7152

Funding

NRRP Initiative, Mission 4, Component 2, Investment 1.3 - Partnerships extended to universities, research centres, companies and research D.D. MUR n. 341 del 15.03.2022 - Next Generation EU H93C22000620001

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFake news detection falls within the field of deception detection and, consequently, can be problematic due to no consensus on which cues increase the detection accuracy and because people's ability to detect is poor.

methodsThe present study aimed to investigate the criteria used by general population to establish if a given news item is true or fake by surveying a sample of the Italian population. We recruited 329 participants who had to reply to some questions on which criteria they used to conclude a given news item was true. The same questions were also asked to investigate the ones used for fake news judgments. RESULTS AND

conclusionOur results showed that, overall, people use similar criteria (e.g., reliability of the source and presence of scientific references) to conclude that news is true versus fake, although their use rates differ for true and fake news.

Indexed as

DeceptionJudgmentAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultdeception detectionfake newsItalian populationveracity judgmentsverbal criteria

Identifiers

PMID39935047

DOI10.1002/brb3.70315

PMCPMC11813807

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.