CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsDigital Media and PhilosophyMisinformation and Its Impacts

Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter

Open access
Mosleh, Mohsen, Pennycook, Gordon, Arechar, Antonio A., Rand, David G.·2021·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0PMC PMC7875970
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We investigate the relationship between individual differences in cognitive reflection and behavior on the social media platform Twitter, using a convenience sample of N = 1,901 individuals from Prolific. We find that people who score higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test—a widely used measure of reflective thinking—were more discerning in their social media use, as evidenced by the types and number of accounts followed, and by the reliability of the news sources they shared. Furthermore, a network analysis indicates that the phenomenon of echo chambers, in which discourse is more likely with like-minded others, is not limited to politics: people who scored lower in cognitive reflection tended to follow a set of accounts which are avoided by people who scored higher in cognitive reflection. Our results help to illuminate the drivers of behavior on social media platforms and challenge intuitionist notions that reflective thinking is unimportant for everyday judgment and decision-making.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Shared partisanship increases the likelihood of social tie formation on platforms like Twitter, reinforcing homophily.

    “Many studies demonstrated that shared partisanship increases the likelihood of social tie formation on platforms like Twitter, reinforcing homophily (e.g., [93][94][95]).”

    From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [93]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says supporters of the same party are much more likely to interact with co-partisans, supporting the homophily point. But this paper studies cognitive reflection and Twitter behavior; it does not itself demonstrate that shared partisanship increases social tie formation. That more specific result appears as the title of a separate study in its References. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. [1]Coyle CL Vaughn H Social networking: communication revolution or evolution? Bell Labs Tech. J. 2008 13 13 17 10.1002/bltj.20298 · DOI
  2. [2]Wellman B Computer networks as social networks Science 2001 293 2031 2034 10.1126/science.1065547 11557877 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]Vaidya M Ice bucket challenge cash may help derisk ALS drug research Nat. Med. 2014 20 1080 10.1038/nm1014-1080 25295924 · DOI
  4. [7]Lazer DM The science of fake news Science 2018 359 1094 1096 10.1126/science.aao2998 29590025 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [8]Vishwanath A Habitual Facebook use and its impact on getting deceived on social media J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 2015 20 83 98 10.1111/jcc4.12100 · DOI
  6. [9]Barberá P Jost JT Nagler J Tucker JA Bonneau R Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychol. Sci. 2015 26 1531 1542 10.1177/0956797615594620 26297377 · DOI · Paper page
  7. [13]Golbeck, J., Robles, C. & Turner, K. Predicting personality with social media. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems 253–262 (ACM, New York, NY, 2011).
  8. [14]Youyou W Kosinski M Stillwell D Computer-based personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2015 112 1036 1040 10.1073/pnas.1418680112 25583507 PMC4313801 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [15]Sumner, C., Byers, A., Boochever, R. & Park, G. J. Predicting dark triad personality traits from twitter usage and a linguistic analysis of tweets. In 2012 11th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications 386–393 (IEEE, 2012).
  10. [16]Guess A Nagler J Tucker J Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook Sci. Adv. 2019 5 eaau4586 10.1126/sciadv.aau4586 30662946 PMC6326755 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [17]Grinberg N Joseph K Friedland L Swire-Thompson B Lazer D Fake news on twitter during the 2016 US Presidential election Science 2019 363 374 378 10.1126/science.aau2706 30679368 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [18]Muscanell NL Guadagno RE Make new friends or keep the old: gender and personality differences in social networking use Computers Hum. Behav. 2012 28 107 112 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.016 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [20]Pennycook G Fugelsang JA Koehler DJ Everyday consequences of analytic thinking Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015 24 425 432 10.1177/0963721415604610 · DOI
  14. [21]Evans AM Dillon KD Rand DG Fast but not intuitive, slow but not reflective: decision conflict drives reaction times in social dilemmas J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2015 144 951 966 10.1037/xge0000107 26413891 · DOI
  15. [23]Stanovich KE West RF Advancing the rationality debate Behav. Brain Sci. 2000 23 701 717 10.1017/S0140525X00623439 11301544 · DOI
  16. [25]Frederick S Cognitive reflection and decision making J. Econ. Perspect. 2005 19 25 42 10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [26]Pennycook G Cheyne JA Koehler DJ Fugelsang JA Is the cognitive reflection test a measure of both reflection and intuition? Behav. Res. Methods 2016 48 341 348 10.3758/s13428-015-0576-1 25740762 · DOI
  18. [27]Toplak ME West RF Stanovich KE The Cognitive Reflection Test as a predictor of performance on heuristics-and-biases tasks Mem. Cogn. 2011 39 1275 10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1 21541821 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [28]Juanchich M Dewberry C Sirota M Narendran S Cognitive reflection predicts real‐life decision outcomes, but not over and above personality and decision‐making styles J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2016 29 52 59 10.1002/bdm.1875 · DOI
  20. [29]Kruglanski AW Gigerenzer G Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles Psychol. Rev. 2011 118 97 10.1037/a0020762 21244188 · DOI
  21. [30]Keren G A tale of two systems: a scientific advance or a theoretical stone soup? Commentary on Evans & Stanovich (2013) Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2013 8 257 262 10.1177/1745691613483474 26172969 · DOI
  22. [31]Haidt, J. In Psychological Review, Vol. 108 814–834 (American Psychological Association, 2001). 11699120
  23. [33]Mercier H The argumentative theory: predictions and empirical evidence Trends Cogn. Sci. 2016 20 689 700 10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001 27450708 · DOI
  24. [34]Mercier H Sperber D Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory Behav. Brain Sci 2011 34 57 74 10.1017/S0140525X10000968 21447233 · DOI · Paper page
  25. [35]Kahan, D. In Culture, Politics and Climate Change: How Information Shapes our Common Future (eds Boykoff, M. & Crow, D.) 203–220 (Routledge Press, 2013).
  26. [36]Kahan DM The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks Nat. Clim. Change 2012 2 732 10.1038/nclimate1547 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [37]Pennycook, G. The New Reflectionism in Cognitive Psychology: Why Reason Matters. (Routledge, 2018).
  28. [38]Shenhav A Rand DG Greene JD Divine intuition: cognitive style influences belief in God J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2012 141 423 10.1037/a0025391 21928924 · DOI · Paper page
  29. [44]Bago B Rand DG Pennycook G Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2020 149 1608 1613 10.1037/xge0000729 31916834 · DOI · Paper page
  30. [45]Pennycook G Rand DG Lazy, not biased: susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning Cognition 2019 188 39 50 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 29935897 · DOI · Paper page
  31. [51]Blondel VD Guillaume J-L Lambiotte R Lefebvre E Fast unfolding of communities in large networks J. Stat. Mech. Theory Exp. 2008 2008 P10008 10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008 · DOI · Paper page
  32. [52]Roberts ME Structural topic models for open‐ended survey responses Am. J. Political Sci. 2014 58 1064 1082 10.1111/ajps.12103 · DOI
  33. [56]Greene JD Sommerville RB Nystrom LE Darley JM Cohen JD An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment Science 2001 293 2105 2108 10.1126/science.1062872 11557895 · DOI · Paper page
  34. [57]Rand DG Cooperation, fast and slow: meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation Psychol. Sci. 2016 27 1192 1206 10.1177/0956797616654455 27422875 · DOI
  35. [58]Köbis NC Verschuere B Bereby-Meyer Y Rand D Shalvi S Intuitive honesty versus dishonesty: meta-analytic evidence Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2019 17 778 796 10.1177/1745691619851778 31291557 · DOI
  36. [59]Rand DG Brescoll VL Everett JAC Capraro V Barcelo H Social heuristics and social roles: intuition favors altruism for women but not for men J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2016 145 389 396 10.1037/xge0000154 26913619 · DOI
  37. [60]Preoţiuc-Pietro, D., Liu, Y., Hopkins, D. & Ungar, L. Beyond binary labels: political ideology prediction of Twitter users. In Proc. 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 729–740 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2017).
  38. [61]Pennycook G Rand DG Cognitive reflection and the 2016 US Presidential election Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2019 45 224 239 10.1177/0146167218783192 29985107 · DOI
  39. [64]Holbrook AL Green MC Krosnick JA Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias Public Opin. Q. 2003 67 79 125 10.1086/346010 · DOI
  40. [65]Enamorado T Imai K Validating self-reported turnout by linking public opinion surveys with administrative records Public Opin. Q. 2018 83 723 748 10.1093/poq/nfz051 · DOI
  41. [66]Mosleh M Kyker K Cohen JD Rand DG Globalization and the rise and fall of cognitive control Nat. Commun. 2020 11 1 10 10.1038/s41467-020-16850-0 32555322 PMC7303166 · DOI
  42. [67]Mosleh M Rand DG Population structure promotes the evolution of intuitive cooperation and inhibits deliberation Sci. Rep. 2018 8 1 8 10.1038/s41598-018-24473-1 29674677 PMC5908863 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Regina (CA)
  • Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (MX)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Mosleh, Mohsen
ORCID
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-02-10
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
921-921
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0
PMC
PMC7875970
OpenAlex
W3128282934
Cited by
175
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 6
FWCI
20.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative of the Miami Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Digital Media and Philosophy
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
cognitive reflection, reflective thinking, Twitter, social media use, echo chambers, news source reliability, individual differences, intuitive judgment, decision-making, social media behavior
MeSH terms
Adult, Cognition, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Judgment, Male, Middle Aged, Social Behavior, Young Adult, 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