Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40857333›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Political affiliation or need for cognition? It depends on the post: Comparing key factors related to detecting health disinformation in the U.S.

Joey F George

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Joey F GeorgeIvy College of Business, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7515-6494

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigate why people believe disinformation about health-related issues. Acting on disinformation could lead to severe injuries and even death. Five hundred eight American respondents each reviewed 10 different social media posts about health-related topics, and 60% of the posts contained disinformation. They were asked to evaluate the posts for their honesty and explain their decisions. Respondents successfully detected disinformation about 2/3 of the time. Across all participant responses, need for cognition was the only factor important to successful detection of disinformation. When investigating each social media post individually, need for cognition was key for 35% of the posts, while political affiliation was key for 15%. Neither factor was important for the remaining 50% of posts. People with a high need for cognition were adept at detecting online disinformation, but those with conservative political affiliations were not. Those best suited to detecting health-related disinformation either had a high need for cognition or a liberal political affiliation.

Indexed as

CognitionPoliticsSocial MediaFemaleHumansMaleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID40857333
PMCPMC12380328

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.