Advances in Psychology Logo Advances in Psychology Logo
Research Article | Special Issue: From Vulnerability to Vigilance

Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason

Samuel G. Robson ORCID, Kate Faasse ORCID, Eliza-Rose Gordon ORCID, Samuel P. Jones, Manisara Drew, & Kristy A. Martire ORCID
https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00027
Published: October 9, 2024
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

Robson, S.G., Faasse, K., Gordon, E., Jones, S.P., Drew, M., & Martire, K.A. (2024). Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason. advances.in/psychology, 2, e003511. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00027

Robson, Samuel G., et al. "Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason." advances.in/psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, e003511. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00027.

Robson, Samuel G., Kate Faasse, Eliza-Rose Gordon, Samuel P. Jones, Manisara Drew, and Kristy A. Martire. 2024. "Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason." advances.in/psychology 2 (1): e003511. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00027.

Robson SG, Faasse K, Gordon E, Jones SP, Drew M, Martire KA. Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason. advances.in/psychology. 2024;2(1):e003511. doi:10.56296/aip00027.

Robson, S.G. et al. (2024) 'Lazy or different? A quantitative content analysis of how believers and nonbelievers of misinformation reason', advances.in/psychology, 2(1), e003511. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00027.

Download .RIS Download .bib
Widespread belief in claims that run counter to substantial scientific evidence—like climate change is a hoax, and the earth is flat—can have harmful societal consequences. Understanding the reasoning behind these beliefs is crucial for mitigating their spread. Across two studies, we used quantitative content analysis to compare how believers (Fringe) and non-believers (Mainstream) of implausible claims reason about evidence. After reading a fictitious report of either high or low quality from a forensic expert (Study 1; N = 183) or doctor (Study 2; N = 193), and rating the expert, participants explained the reasoning behind their ratings. We analysed the quantity and quality of these responses. There was mixed evidence suggesting that Fringe believers' responses were less effortful than Mainstream responses. However, we found consistent evidence that Fringe believers provided significantly fewer normative justifications and weak evidence that they provided significantly more self-generated justifications. These results suggest that Fringe believers rely less on conventional indicators of evidence quality. Differences in how people evaluate information may explain why some adopt implausible beliefs, and framing information in ways that resonate with Fringe believers may help reduce the spread of false claims.

No citation data available yet.

Download PDF Back to article