Lack of partisan bias in the identification of fake (versus real) news
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sharing discernment is superior to simply focusing on sharing of false news because an intervention that decreases sharing of both true and false news equally would not indicate that people are focusing more on accuracy.
“This approach is superior to simply focusing on the sharing of false news because an intervention that decreases the sharing of both true and false news equally would not indicate that people are focusing more on accuracy40.”
From Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation (2022) · cites this paper as [40]
Cites
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 · Cited by 1,360 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief
Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004 · Cited by 743 · see citing works
False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United States Equally Biased?
Baron, J., & Jost, J. T. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691618788876 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Tappin, B. M., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.003 · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Self-citationPartisan bias in the identification of fake news
Gawronski, B. (2021) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.05.001 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Regina (CA)
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pennycook, Gordon
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 725-726
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3182051644
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- fake news, partisan bias, truth discernment, cognitive reflection, motivated reasoning, misinformation detection, partisanship
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Deception, Bias, Social Media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
