1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology
  4. Volume 6, 2024
  5. Article

Annual Review of Developmental Psychology

Volume 6, 2024

The Psychology of Misinformation Across the Lifespan

Abstract

Ubiquitous misinformation on social media threatens the health and well-being of young people. We review research on susceptibility to misinformation, why it spreads, and how these mechanisms might operate developmentally. Although we identify many research gaps, results suggest that cognitive ability, thinking styles, and metacognitive scrutiny of misinformation are protective, but early adverse experiences can bias information processing and sow seeds of mistrust. We find that content knowledge is not sufficient to protect against misinformation, but that it, along with life experiences, provides a foundation for gist plausibility (true in principle, rather than true at the level of verbatim details) that likely determines whether misinformation is accepted and shared. Thus, we present a theoretical framework based on fuzzy-trace theory that integrates the following: knowledge that distinguishes verbatim facts from gist (knowledge that is amplified by cognitive faculties and derived from trusted sources); personality as an information-processing filter colored by experiences; emotion as a product of interpreting the gist of information; and ideology that changes prior probabilities and gist interpretations of what is plausible. The young and the old may be at greatest risk because of their prioritization of social goals, a need that social media algorithms are designed to meet but at the cost of widespread exposure to misinformation.

Keyword(s): cognitive ability, cognitive reflection, fake news, fuzzy-trace theory, misinformation, numeracy, plausibility, political bias, sharing, social media
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
2024-12-09
2025-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/devpsych/6/1/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ahmed S, Tan HW. 2022.. Personality and perspicacity: role of personality traits and cognitive ability in political misinformation discernment and sharing behavior. . Personal. Individ. Differ. 196::111747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2022.111747
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alwin DF, Krosnick JA. 1991.. Aging, cohorts, and the stability of sociopolitical orientations over the life span. . Am. J. Sociol. 97::169–95. https://doi.org/10.1086/229744
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  3. Appelman A. 2023.. Numbers in news articles: effects of presence, errors, and (false) recall. . Electron. News 18:(2):67–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/19312431231190846
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arechar AA, Allen J, Berinsky AJ, Cole R, Epstein Z, et al. 2023.. Understanding and combating misinformation across 16 countries on six continents. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:(9):1502–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01641-6
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  5. Auxier B, Anderson M, Perrin A, Turner E. 2020.. Children's engagement with digital devices, screen time. . Rep. , Pew Res. Cent., Washington, DC:. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/07/28/childrens-engagement-with-digital-devices-screen-time/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baghdadi JD, Coffey KC, Belcher R, Frisbie J, Hassan N, et al. 2023.. #Coronavirus on TikTok: user engagement with misinformation as a potential threat to public health behavior. . JAMIA Open 6:(1):ooad013. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad013
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bago B, Rand DG, Pennycook G. 2020.. Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149:(8):1608–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bago B, Rosenzweig LR, Berinsky AJ, Rand DG. 2022.. Emotion may predict susceptibility to fake news but emotion regulation does not seem to help. . Cogn. Emot. 36:(6):1166–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2022.2090318
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. Baron J, Jost JT. 2019.. False equivalence: Are liberals and conservatives in the United States equally biased?. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:(2):292–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618788876
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  10. Barzilai S, Zohar A. 2012.. Epistemic thinking in action: evaluating and integrating online sources. . Cogn. Instr. 30:(1):39–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.636495
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  11. Begg IM, Anas A, Farinacci S. 1992.. Dissociation of processes in belief: source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 121:(4):446–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.446
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  12. Béna J, Rihet M, Carreras O, Terrier P. 2023a.. Repetition could increase the perceived truth of conspiracy theories. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 30::2397–406. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02276-4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  13. Béna J, Rouard M, Corneille O. 2023b.. You won't believe it! Truth judgments for clickbait headlines benefit (but less so) from prior exposure. . Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 37:(6):1418–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4134
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  14. Besley JC, Hill D. 2020.. Science and technology: public attitudes, knowledge, and interest. Rep. , Sci. Eng. Indic., Natl. Sci. Board, Alexandria, VA:. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20207/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blakemore SJ. 2018.. Avoiding social risk in adolescence. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27:(2):116–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738144
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  16. Bowes SM, Costello TH, Tasimi A. 2023.. The conspiratorial mind: a meta-analytic review of motivational and personological correlates. . Psychol. Bull. 149:(5–6):259–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000392
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Brashier NM, Eliseev ED, Marsh EJ. 2020.. An initial accuracy focus prevents illusory truth. . Cognition 194::104054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104054
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  18. Brashier NM, Rand DG. 2021.. Illusory truth occurs even with incentives for accuracy. . PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/83m9y
  19. Brashier NM, Schacter DL. 2020.. Aging in an era of fake news. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 29:(3):316–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420915872
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  20. Brashier NM, Umanath S, Cabeza R, Marsh EJ. 2017.. Competing cues: Older adults rely on knowledge in the face of fluency. . Psychol. Aging 32:(4):331–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000156
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  21. Breakstone J, Smith M, Wineburg S, Rapaport A, Carle J, et al. 2021.. Students’ civic online reasoning: a national portrait. . Educ. Res. 50:(8):505–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211017495
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. Breit M, Scherrer V, Tucker-Drob EM, Preckel F. 2024.. The stability of cognitive abilities: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. . Psychol. Bull. 150:(4):399–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000425
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  23. Broniatowski DA, Hilyard KM, Dredze M. 2016.. Effective vaccine communication during the Disneyland measles outbreak. . Vaccine 34:(28):3225–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.04.044
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  24. Broniatowski DA, Hosseini P, Porter EV, Wood T. 2024.. The role of mental representation in sharing misinformation online. . J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. In press. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000517
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Broniatowski DA, Jamison AM, Qi S, AlKulaib L, Chen T, et al. 2018.. Weaponized health communication: Twitter bots and Russian trolls amplify the vaccine debate. . Am. J. Public Health 108:(10):1378–84. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  26. Broniatowski DA, Reyna VF. 2018.. A formal model of fuzzy-trace theory: variations on framing effects and the Allais Paradox. . Decision 5:(4):205–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000083
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  27. Broniatowski DA, Reyna VF. 2020.. To illuminate and motivate: a fuzzy-trace model of the spread of information online. . Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 26:(4):431–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-019-09297-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  28. Bronstein MV, Pennycook G, Buonomano L, Cannon TD. 2021.. Belief in fake news, responsiveness to cognitive conflict, and analytic reasoning engagement. . Think. Reason. 27:(4):510–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1847190
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  29. Buchanan T, Benson V. 2019.. Spreading disinformation on Facebook: Do trust in message source, risk propensity, or personality affect the organic reach of “fake news”?. Soc. Media Soc. 5:(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119888654
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Calvillo DP, Garcia RJB, Bertrand K, Mayers TA. 2021.. Personality factors and self-reported political news consumption predict susceptibility to political fake news. . Personal. Individ. Differ. 174::110666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110666
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  31. Calvillo DP, Harris JD. 2023.. Exposure to headlines as questions reduces illusory truth for subsequent headlines. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 12:(3):335–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000056
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Calvillo DP, León A, Rutchick AM. 2024.. Personality and misinformation. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 55::101752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101752
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  33. Calvillo DP, Ross BJ, Garcia RJB, Smelter TJ, Rutchick AM. 2020.. Political ideology predicts perceptions of the threat of COVID-19 (and susceptibility to fake news about it). . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11:(8):1119–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620940539
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  34. Cantor AD, Marsh EJ. 2017.. Expertise effects in the Moses illusion: detecting contradictions with stored knowledge. . Memory 25:(2):220–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2016.1152377
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  35. Carrasco-Farré C. 2022.. The fingerprints of misinformation: how deceptive content differs from reliable sources in terms of cognitive effort and appeal to emotions. . Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 9:(1):162. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01174-9
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  36. Ceci SJ, Ross DF, Toglia MP. 1987.. Suggestibility of children's memory: psycholegal implications. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 116:(1):38–49. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.116.1.38
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  37. Cent. Dis. Control Prev. 2024a.. About the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cent. Dis. Control Prev. 2024b.. Measles cases and outbreaks. . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Ceylan G, Anderson IA, Wood W. 2023.. Sharing of misinformation is habitual, not just lazy or biased. . PNAS 120:(4):e2216614120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2216614120
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  40. Corriveau KH, Fusaro M, Harris PL. 2009.. Going with the flow: Preschoolers prefer nondissenters as informants. . Psychol. Sci. 20:(3):372–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02291.x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Corriveau KH, Harris PL. 2010.. Preschoolers (sometimes) defer to the majority in making simple perceptual judgments. . Dev. Psychol. 46:(2):437–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017553
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  42. Dechêne A, Stahl C, Hansen J, Wänke M. 2010.. The truth about the truth: a meta-analytic review of the truth effect. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 14:(2):238–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352251
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  43. De keersmaecker J, Dunning D, Pennycook G, Rand DG, Sanchez C, et al. 2020.. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. . Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46:(2):204–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853844
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. De keersmaecker J, Roets A. 2017.. ‘ Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. . Intelligence 65::107–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ding X, Carik B, Gunturi U, Reyna VF, Rho E. 2024.. Leveraging prompt-based large language models: predicting pandemic health decisions and outcomes through social media language. . In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 443:1–20. New York:: Assoc. Comput. Mach. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642117
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, et al. 2018.. At least bias is bipartisan: a meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 14:(2):273–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  47. Du YR, Zhu L, Cheng BK. 2019.. Are numbers not trusted in a “post-truth” era? An experiment on the impact of data on news credibility. . Electron. News 13:(4):179–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243119883839
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  48. Dunning D, Fetchenhauer D, Schlösser T. 2019.. Why people trust: solved puzzles and open mysteries. . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28:(4):366–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838255
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Schmid P, Fazio LK, et al. 2022.. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. . Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1:(1):13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ecker UKH, Sze BKN, Andreotta M. 2021.. Corrections of political misinformation: no evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a U.S. convenience sample. . Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376:(1822):20200145. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0145
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  51. Edelson SM, Reyna VF, Hayes BB, Garavito DMN. 2024.. Dual-systems and fuzzy-trace theory predictions of COVID-19 risk taking in young adults. . Decision 11:(3):35582. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000231
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  52. El Mikati IK, Hoteit R, Harb T, El Zein O, Piggott T, et al. 2023.. Defining misinformation and related terms in health-related literature: Scoping review. . J. Med. Internet Res. 25::e45731. https://doi.org/10.2196/45731
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  53. Enders A, Farhart C, Miller J, Uscinski J, Saunders K, Drochon H. 2023.. Are Republicans and conservatives more likely to believe conspiracy theories?. Political Behav. 45:(4):2001–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09812-3
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  54. Epstein Z, Sirlin N, Arechar A, Pennycook G, Rand D. 2023.. The social media context interferes with truth discernment. . Sci. Adv. 9:(9):eabo6169. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6169
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  55. Erickson TD, Mattson ME. 1981.. From words to meaning: a semantic illusion. . J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 20:(5):540–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  56. Erlich A, Garner C, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2022.. Does analytic thinking insulate against pro-Kremlin disinformation? Evidence from Ukraine. . Political Psychol. 44:(1):79–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12819
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Evans JS, Stanovich KE. 2013.. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 8:(3):223–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  58. Fazio LK. 2018.. Positive and negative effects of multiple-choice testing in children. Talk presented at the Biennial Meeting of the International Mind, Brain and Education Society, Los Angeles, CA:, Sept .
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Fazio LK, Brashier NM, Payne BK, Marsh EJ. 2015.. Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 144:(5):993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Fazio LK, Marsh EJ. 2008.. Older, not younger, children learn more false facts from stories. . Cognition 106:(2):1081–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.012
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  61. Fazio LK, Pillai RM, Patel D. 2022.. The effects of repetition on belief in naturalistic settings. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 151:(10):2604–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001211
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  62. Fazio LK, Rand DG, Pennycook G. 2019.. Repetition increases perceived truth equally for plausible and implausible statements. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 26:(5):1705–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01651-4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Fazio LK, Sherry CL. 2020.. The effect of repetition on truth judgments across development. . Psychol. Sci. 31:(9):1150–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939534
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  64. Frederick S. 2005.. Cognitive reflection and decision making. . J. Econ. Perspect. 19:(4):25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  65. Freiling I, Krause NM, Scheufele DA, Brossard D. 2021.. Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: the role of anxiety during COVID-19. . New Media Soc. 25:(1):141–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011451
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  66. Fusaro M, Harris PL. 2008.. Children assess informant reliability using bystanders' non-verbal cues. . Dev. Sci. 11:(5):771–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00728.x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  67. Garrett RK, Bond RM. 2021.. Conservatives’ susceptibility to political misperceptions. . Sci. Adv. 7:(23):eabf1234. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf1234
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Gelman SA. 2005.. The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford, UK:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Goldstein JA, Chao J, Grossman S, Stamos A, Tomz M. 2024.. How persuasive is AI-generated propaganda?. PNAS Nexus 3::pgae034. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae034
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  70. Gratton C, Béghin G, Gagnon-St-Pierre É, Markovits H. 2024.. False information is harder to debunk after gist repetitions than verbatim repetitions. . J. Cogn. Psychol. 36:(3):309–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2024.2314975
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  71. Greškovičová K, Masaryk R, Synak N, Čavojová V. 2022.. Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?. Front. Psychol. 13::940903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940903
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  72. Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. 2019.. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. . Science 363:(6425):374–78. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  73. Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J. 2019.. Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. . Sci. Adv. 5:(1):eaau4586. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Guyer AE, Silk JS, Nelson EE. 2016.. The neurobiology of the emotional adolescent: from the inside out. . Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 70::74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.037
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  75. Gweon H, Asaba M. 2018.. Order matters: Children's evaluation of underinformative teachers depends on context. . Child Dev. 89:(3):e278–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12825
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  76. Gweon H, Pelton H, Konopka JA, Schulz LE. 2014.. Sins of omission: Children selectively explore when teachers are under-informative. . Cognition 132:(3):335–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.04.013
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  77. Helgason BA, Effron DA. 2022.. It might become true: how prefactual thinking licenses dishonesty. . J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 123:(5):909–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000308
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  78. Hoes E, Aitken B, Zhang J, Gackowski T, Wojcieszak M. 2024.. Prominent misinformation interventions reduce misperceptions but increase scepticism. . Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01884-x
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Holliday RE, Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF. 2011.. Developmental reversals in false memory: Now you see them, now you don't!. Dev. Psychol. 47:(2):442–49. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021058
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  80. Hwang Y, Jeong SH. 2023.. Gist knowledge and misinformation acceptance: an application of fuzzy trace theory. . Health Commun. 39:(5):937–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2197306
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  81. Jamieson KH. 2021.. Marshaling the gist of and gists in messages to protect science and counter misinformation. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10:(4):517–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.006
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  82. Jamieson KH, Johnson KB, Cappola AR. 2024.. Misinformation and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. . JAMA 331:(12):1005–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.1757
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  83. Jaswal VK, Croft AC, Setia AR, Cole CA. 2010.. Young children have a specific, highly robust bias to trust testimony. . Psychol. Sci. 21:(10):1541–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383438
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  84. Kahan DM, Peters E. 2017.. Rumors of the “nonreplication” of the “motivated numeracy effect” are greatly exaggerated. Yale Law Econ. Res. Pap. 584 , Yale Univ., New Haven, CT:. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3026941
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Kahan DM, Peters E, Dawson EC, Slovic P. 2017.. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. . Behav. Public Policy 1::54–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  86. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, et al. 2012.. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. . Nat. Clim. Change 2::732–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  87. Kahneman D. 2011.. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York:: Farrar, Straus and Giroux
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Kheirzadeh S, Pakzadian SS. 2015.. Depth of processing and age differences. . J. Psycholinguist. Res. 45:(5):1137–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-015-9395-x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  89. Lacassagne D, Béna J, Corneille O. 2022.. Is Earth a perfect square? Repetition increases the perceived truth of highly implausible statements. . Cognition 223::105052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105052
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  90. Langdon JA, Helgason BA, Qiu J, Effron DA. 2024.. It's not literally true, but you get the gist: how nuanced understandings of truth encourage people to condone and spread misinformation. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 57::101788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101788
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Lee JJ, Kang KA, Wang MP, Zhao SZ, Wong JYH, et al. 2020.. Associations between COVID-19 misinformation exposure and belief with COVID-19 knowledge and preventive behaviors: cross-sectional online study. . J. Med. Internet Res. 22:(11):e22205. https://doi.org/10.2196/22205
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  92. Lewandowsky S, van der Linden S. 2021.. Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 32:(2):348–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  93. Li SC, Lindenberger U, Hommel B, Aschersleben G, Prinz W, Baltes PB. 2004.. Transformations in the couplings among intellectual abilities and constituent cognitive processes across the life span. . Psychol. Sci. 15:(3):155–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.01503003.x
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  94. Lin H, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2023.. Thinking more or thinking differently? Using drift-diffusion modeling to illuminate why accuracy prompts decrease misinformation sharing. . Cognition 230::105312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105312
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. 2021.. Measuring the impact of exposure to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccine intent in the UK and US. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 5::337–48. Correction . 2021.. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5::407. Correction . 2021.. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5::960. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Luna B, Marek S, Larsen B, Tervo-Clemmens B, Chahal R. 2015.. An integrative model of the maturation of cognitive control. . Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 38::151–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071714-034054
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  97. Luo M, Hancock JT, Markowitz DM. 2020.. Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. . Commun. Res. 49:(2):171–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  98. Marsh EJ, Fazio LK, Goswick AE. 2012.. Memorial consequences of testing school-aged children. . Memory 20:(8):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2012.708757
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  99. Martel C, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2020.. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. . Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 5:(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  100. Martel C, Rathje S, Clark CJ, Pennycook G, Van Bavel JJ, et al. 2024.. On the efficacy of accuracy prompts across partisan lines: an adversarial collaboration. . Psychol. Sci. 35:(4):435–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241232905
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  101. Martire KA, Robson SG, Drew M, Nicholls K, Faasse K. 2023.. Thinking false and slow: implausible beliefs and the Cognitive Reflection Test. . Psychon. Bull. Rev. 30:(6):2387–96. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02321-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  102. Maza MT, Fox KA, Kwon SJ, Flannery JE, Lindquist KA, et al. 2023.. Association of habitual checking behaviors on social media with longitudinal functional brain development. . JAMA Pediatrics 177:(2):160–67. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4924
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Meyer A, Frederick S. 2023.. The formation and revision of intuitions. . Cognition 240::105380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105380
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  104. Miller NZ. 2021.. Vaccines and sudden infant death: an analysis of the VAERS database 1990–2019 and review of the medical literature. . Toxicol. Rep. 8::1324–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2021.06.020
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  105. Mirhoseini M, Early S, El Shamy N, Hassanein K. 2023.. Actively open-minded thinking is key to combating fake news: a multimethod study. . Inform. Manag. 60:(3):103761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103761
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  106. Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Ambler A, Bourassa K, Harrington H, et al. 2022.. Deep-seated psychological histories of COVID-19 vaccine hesitance and resistance. . PNAS Nexus 1:(2):pgac034. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac034
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  107. Natl. Assess. Educ. Prog. 2022.. National Achievement-Level Results. . https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/nation/achievement/?grade=4
  108. Newman EJ, Jalbert MC, Schwarz N, Ly DP. 2020.. Truthiness, the illusory truth effect, and the role of need for cognition. . Conscious. Cogn. 78::102866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.102866
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. O'Brien TC, Palmer R, Albarracin D. 2021.. Misplaced trust: when trust in science fosters belief in pseudoscience and the benefits of critical evaluation. . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 96::104184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104184
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  110. Osborne D, Costello TH, Duckitt J, Sibley CG. 2023.. The psychological causes and social consequences of authoritarianism. . Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2::220–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00161-4
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  111. Osmundsen M, Bor A, Vahlstrup PB, Bechmann A, Petersen MB. 2021.. Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on Twitter. . Am. Political Sci. Rev. 115:(3):999–1015. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000290
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  112. Palmer EC, David AS, Fleming SM. 2014.. Effects of age on metacognitive efficiency. . Conscious. Cogn. 28::51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.06.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  113. Pelau C, Pop MI, Stanescu M, Sanda G. 2023.. The breaking news effect and its impact on the credibility and trust in information posted on social media. . Electronics 12:(2):423. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12020423
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  114. Pennycook G, Cannon TD, Rand DG. 2018.. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147:(12):1865–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  115. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. 2020.. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. . Psychol. Sci. 31:(7):770–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  116. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2019.. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. . Cognition 188::29–50. https://doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  117. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2021.. The psychology of fake news. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:(5):388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  118. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2022.. Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. . Nat. Commun. 13:(1):2333. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Pereira A, Harris E, Van Bavel JJ. 2023.. Identity concerns drive belief: the impact of partisan identity on the belief and dissemination of true and false news. . Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 26:(1):24–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211030004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  120. Persson E, Andersson D, Koppel L, Västfjäll D, Tinghög G. 2021.. A preregistered replication of motivated numeracy. . Cognition 214::104768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104768
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  121. Peters E. 2020.. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. New York:: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Peters E, Shoots-Reinhard B. 2023.. Better decision making through objective numeracy and numeric self-efficacy. . Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 68::1–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2023.03.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  123. Pew Res. Cent. 2023.. News platform fact sheet. Fact Sh., Pew Res. Cent. Journal. Proj., Washington, DC:. https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Pierri F, Perry BL, DeVerna MR, Yang KC, Flammini A, et al. 2022.. Online misinformation is linked to early COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal. . Sci. Rep. 12:(1):5966. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10070-w
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  125. Pillai RM, Fazio LK. 2024.. Repeated by many versus repeated by one: Examining the role of social consensus in the relationship between repetition and belief. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Pillai RM, Kim E, Fazio L. 2023.. All the President's lies: repeated false claims and public opinion. . Public Opin. Q. 87:(3):764–802. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad032
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  127. Poulin MJ, Haase CM. 2015.. Growing to trust: evidence that trust increases and sustains well-being across the life span. . Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6:(6):614–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615574301
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  128. Rathje S, Roozenbeek J, Van Bavel JJ, van der Linden S. 2023.. Accuracy and social motivations shape judgements of (mis)information. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 7:(6):892–903. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01540-w
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  129. Reyna VF. 2012.. Risk perception and communication in vaccination decisions: a fuzzy-trace theory approach. . Vaccine 30:(25):3790–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.070
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  130. Reyna VF. 2020.. Of viruses, vaccines, and variability: qualitative meaning matters. . Trends Cogn. Sci. 24:(9):672–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.05.015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  131. Reyna VF. 2021.. A scientific theory of gist communication and misinformation resistance, with implications for health, education, and policy. . PNAS 118:(5):e1912441117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912441117
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  132. Reyna VF. 2023a.. Models of risky choice across ages, frames, and individuals: the fuzzy frontier. . Decision 10:(3):238–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000209
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  133. Reyna VF. 2023b.. Social media: why sharing interferes with telling true from false. . Sci. Adv. 9:(9):eadg8333. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg8333
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Reyna VF, Adam MB. 2003.. Fuzzy-trace theory, risk communication, and product labeling in sexually transmitted diseases. . Risk Anal. 23:(2):325–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00332
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  135. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. 2023.. Numeracy, gist, literal thinking and the value of nothing in decision making. . Nat. Rev. Psychol. 2:(7):421–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00188-7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  136. Reyna VF, Broniatowski DA, Edelson SM. 2021a.. Viruses, vaccines, and COVID-19: explaining and improving risky decision-making. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10:(4):491–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.08.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  137. Reyna VF, Corbin JC, Weldon RB, Brainerd CJ. 2016.. How fuzzy-trace theory predicts true and false memories for words, sentences, and narratives. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 5:(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.12.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  138. Reyna VF, Edelson SM, Broniatowski DA. 2021b.. Misconceptions, misinformation, and moving forward in theories of COVID-19 risky behaviors. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10:(4):537–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.11.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  139. Reyna VF, Mills BA. 2014.. Theoretically motivated interventions for reducing sexual risk taking in adolescence: a randomized controlled experiment applying fuzzy-trace theory. . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143:(4):1627–1648. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036717
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  140. Riesthuis P, Woods J. 2024.. “ That's just like, your opinion, man”: the illusory truth effect on opinions. . Psychol. Res. 88:(1):284–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01845-5
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  141. Rigoli F. 2021.. Masters of suspicion: a Bayesian decision model of motivated political reasoning. . J. Theory Soc. Behav. 51:(3):350–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12274
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  142. Romer D, Jamieson KH. 2020.. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. . Soc. Sci. Med. 263::113356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  143. Roozenbeek J, Freeman ALJ, van der Linden S. 2021.. How accurate are accuracy-nudge interventions? A preregistered direct replication of Pennycook et al. (2020). . Psychol. Sci. 32:(7):1169–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211024535
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  144. Roozenbeek J, Maertens R, Herzog SM, Geers M, Kurvers R, et al. 2022.. Susceptibility to misinformation is consistent across question framings and response modes and better explained by myside bias and partisanship than analytical thinking. . Judgm. Decis. Making 17:(3):547–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500003570
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  145. Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman AL, et al. 2020.. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. . R. Soc. Open Sci. 7:(10):201199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  146. Ryan TJ, Aziz AR. 2021.. Is the political right more credulous? Experimental evidence against asymmetric motivations to believe false political information. . J. Politics 83:(3):1168–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/711133
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  147. Scherer LD, McPhetres J, Pennycook G, Kempe A, Allen LA, et al. 2021.. Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses. . Health Psychol. 40:(4):274–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000978
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  148. Sherman LE, Hernandez LM, Greenfield PM, Dapretto M. 2018.. What the brain ‘likes’: neural correlates of providing feedback on social media. . Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 13:(7):699–707. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsy051
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  149. Shiner RL. 2019.. Negative emotionality and neuroticism from childhood through adulthood: a lifespan perspective. . In Handbook of Personality Development, ed. DP McAdams, RL Shiner, JL Tackett , pp. 137–52. New York:: Guilford Press
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Shiner RL, Allen TA, Masten AS. 2017.. Adversity in adolescence predicts personality trait change from childhood to adulthood. . J. Res. Personal. 67::171–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.002
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  151. Shtulman A, Harrington C, Hetzel C, Kim J, Palumbo C, Rountree-Shtulman T. 2023.. Could it? Should it? Cognitive reflection facilitates children's reasoning about possibility and permissibility. . J. Exp. Child Psychol. 235::105727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105727
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  152. Smillie LD, Kern ML, Uljarevic M. 2019.. Extraversion: description, development, and mechanisms. . In Handbook of Personality Development, ed. DP McAdams, RL Shiner, JL Tackett , pp. 118–36. New York:: Guilford Press
     [Google Scholar]
  153. Spitale G, Biller-Andorno N, Germani F. 2023.. AI model GPT-3 (dis)informs us better than humans. . Sci. Adv. 9:(26):eadh1850. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh1850
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  154. Stagnaro MN, Tappin BM, Rand DG. 2023.. No association between numerical ability and politically motivated reasoning in a large US probability sample. . PNAS 120:(32):e2301491120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301491120
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  155. Stanovich KE, Toplak ME. 2023.. Actively open-minded thinking and its measurement. . J. Intell. 11:(2):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11020027
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  156. Steinbeis N. 2023.. A rational account of cognitive control development in childhood. . Annu. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 5::217–35. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120221-040058
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  157. Steinberg L, Icenogle G, Shulman EP, Breiner K, Chein J, et al. 2018.. Around the world, adolescence is a time of heightened sensation seeking and immature self-regulation. . Dev. Sci. 21:(2):e12532. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12532
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  158. Thapar A, McDermott KB. 2001.. False recall and false recognition induced by presentation of associated words: effects of retention interval and level of processing. . Mem. Cogn. 29:(3):424–32. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196393
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  159. TikTok. 2024.. Privacy policy. . TikTok. https://www.tiktok.com/legal/page/us/privacy-policy/en
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Udry J, Barber SJ. 2024.. The illusory truth effect: a review of how repetition increases belief in misinformation. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 56::101736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101736
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  161. Unkelbach C. 2007.. Reversing the truth effect: learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. . J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 33:(1):219–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  162. Unkelbach C, Speckmann F. 2021.. Mere repetition increases belief in factually true COVID-19-related information. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10:(2):241–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.02.001
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  163. Van den Akker AL, Briley DA, Grotzinger AD, Tackett JL, Tucker-Drob EM, Harden KP. 2021.. Adolescent Big Five personality and pubertal development: pubertal hormone concentrations and self-reported pubertal status. . Dev. Psychol. 57:(1):60–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001135
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  164. van der Linden S. 2022.. Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. . Nat. Med. 28:(3):460–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  165. van der Linden S. 2024.. Countering misinformation through psychological inoculation. . In Advances in Experimnetal Social Psychology, Vol. 69, ed. BB Gawronski , pp. 1–58. London: Academic . https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2023.11.001
    [Google Scholar]
  166. van der Linden S, Albarracín D, Fazio L, Freelon D, Roozenbeek J, et al. 2023.. Using psychological science to understand and fight health misinformation: an APA consensus statement. Rep. , Am. Psychol. Assoc., Washington, DC:. https://doi.org/10.1037/e506432023-001
    [Google Scholar]
  167. van der Linden S, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E. 2018.. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. . Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:(1):2–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  168. van der Linden S, Panagopoulos C, Roozenbeek J. 2020.. You are fake news: political bias in perceptions of fake news. . Media Cult. Soc. 42:(3):460–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720906992
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  169. van Prooijen JW. 2022.. Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories. . Curr. Opin. Psychol. 47::101352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101352
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  170. Vegetti F, Mancosu M. 2020.. The impact of political sophistication and motivated reasoning on misinformation. . Political Commun. 37:(5):678–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1744778
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  171. Vellani V, Zheng S, Ercelik D, Sharot T. 2023.. The illusory truth effect leads to the spread of misinformation. . Cognition 236::105421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105421
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  172. Vijaykumar S, Jin Y, Rogerson D, Lu X, Sharma S, et al. 2021.. How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 (mis)information: randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. . Human. Soc. Sci. Commun. 8:(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00752-7
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  173. Wang W, Jacobson S. 2022.. Effects of health misinformation on misbeliefs: understanding the moderating roles of different types of knowledge. . J. Inform. Commun. Ethics Soc. 21:(1):76–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/jices-02-2022-0015
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  174. Wang ML, Togher K. 2024.. Health misinformation on social media and adolescent health. . JAMA Pediatr. 178:(2):109–10. https://doi.org/jamapediatrics.2023.5282
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  175. Weil LG, Fleming SM, Dumontheil I, Kilford EJ, Weil RS, et al. 2013.. The development of metacognitive ability in adolescence. . Consciousness Cogn. 22:(1):264–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.01.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  176. Weinstein SM, Mermelstein R. 2007.. Relations between daily activities and adolescent mood: the role of autonomy. . J. Clin. Child Adolesc. Psychol. 36:(2):182–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701274967
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  177. Wolfe CR. 2021.. Fuzzy-trace theory and the battle for the gist in the public mind. . J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 10:(4):527–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.10.004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  178. World Econ. Forum. 2024.. The Global Risks Report 2024. Insight Rep., World Econ. Forum, Geneva, Switz.: https://www.marshmclennan.com/content/dam/mmc-web/insights/publications/2024/global-risks-report-2024/World_Economic_Forum_Global_Risks-Report_2024.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  179. Xu S, Shtulman A, Young AG. 2022.. Can children detect fake news?. Proc. Annu. Conf. Cogn. Sci. Soc. 44::2988–93
     [Google Scholar]
  180. Young AG, Shtulman A. 2020.. Children's cognitive reflection predicts conceptual understanding in science and mathematics. . Psychol. Sci. 31:(11):1396–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620954449
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  181. Zmigrod L, Burnell R, Hameleers M. 2023.. The misinformation receptivity framework: political misinformation and disinformation as cognitive Bayesian inference problems. . Eur. Psychol. 28:(3):173–88. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000498
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
Loading
The Psychology of Misinformation Across the Lifespan
Annual Review of Developmental Psychology 6, 425 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error