Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165403›Full record

ArticlePersonality & social psychology bulletin2026

Who Falls for Misinformation and Why?

Tyler J Hubeny, Lea S Nahon, Nyx L Ng, Bertram Gawronski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Personality & social psychology bulletin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Tyler J HubenyUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0009-0008-7069-4593
Lea S NahonUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2468-4243
Nyx L NgUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3416-1385
Bertram GawronskiUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7938-3339

Funding

National Science Foundation BCS-2040684Swiss National Science Foundation P500PS_214298
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation is widespread, but only some people accept the false information they encounter. This raises two questions: Who falls for misinformation, and why do they fall for misinformation? To address these questions, two studies investigated associations between 15 individual-difference dimensions and judgments of misinformation as true. Using Signal Detection Theory, the studies further investigated whether the obtained associations are driven by individual differences in truth sensitivity, acceptance threshold, or myside bias. For both political misinformation (Study 1) and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 2), truth sensitivity was positively associated with cognitive reflection and actively open-minded thinking, and negatively associated with bullshit receptivity and conspiracy mentality. Although acceptance threshold and myside bias explained considerable variance in judgments of misinformation as true, neither showed robust associations with the measured individual-difference dimensions. The findings provide deeper insights into individual differences in misinformation susceptibility and uncover critical gaps in their scientific understanding.

Indexed as

CommunicationJudgmentCognitive ReflectionCOVID-19 VaccinesDeceptionFemaleHumansIndividualityMalePersonalityPoliticsSignal Detection, PsychologicalCOVID-19 Vaccinesmisinformationmyside biaspersonalitysignal detectiontruth judgment

Identifiers

PMID40165403
PMCPMC13216562

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.