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.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Susceptibility to digital health misinformation: a multi-level narrative review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.