ArticlePloS one2026
Cognitive load and individual differences as drivers of health-related misinformation: A signal detection approach.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global spread of health-related misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to understand the psychological mechanisms that make individuals susceptible to health-related misinformation. This study examined the impact of cognitive load and individual differences on susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation using a Signal Detection Theory framework. A sample of 634 university students evaluated true and false COVID-19 headlines under working memory load and no-load conditions, while also completing standardized assessments of cognitive reflection, epistemically unwarranted beliefs, naïve skepticism, and bullshit receptivity. Results showed that, although the working memory load manipulation successfully impaired recall and increased response time, it did not affect participants' tendency to accept false information as true. In contrast, individual-difference variables robustly predicted misinformation susceptibility. Specifically, beliefs in pseudoscience, epistemically unwarranted beliefs, naïve skepticism, and bullshit receptivity showed moderate positive associations with false-alarm rates and negative associations with discrimination sensitivity. Cognitive reflection was negatively associated with false-alarm rates and positively with discrimination sensitivity. Only small associations were found between individual-difference dimensions and response bias. These findings suggest that stable cognitive and epistemic dispositions play a significant role in shaping people's ability to distinguish between accurate and false health information.
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.