The impact of confirmation bias awareness on mitigating susceptibility to misinformation
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: In the current digital age, the proliferation of misinformation presents a formidable challenge to a democratic society. False narratives surrounding vaccination efforts pose a significant public health risk. Understanding the role of cognitive biases in susceptibility to misinformation is crucial in addressing this challenge. Confirmation bias, characterized by the tendency to favor information that aligns with pre-existing beliefs or attitudes, can exacerbate the spread of false narratives. Methods: This study investigates the effect of confirmation bias awareness on susceptibility to general misinformation. For this, a sample of 1,479 participants was recruited, ensuring diverse representation across attitudes towards vaccination. Half of the participants received targeted information about confirmation bias, aimed at increasing awareness of this bias and its potential impact on cognitive processing of information. The other half did not receive this information. Results: Results from the study indicated that participants exposed to an intervention aimed at inducing awareness of confirmation bias demonstrated reduced susceptibility to misinformation and increased ability to general discernment of veracity. Notably, these effects were only pronounced among individuals who initially were most negative towards COVID-19 vaccines. Discussion: These insights provide a foundation for developing targeted strategies to promote informed decision-making and mitigate the spread of misinformation, particularly in the context of public health crises. Further research is warranted to explore the underlying mechanisms driving these effects and to refine intervention approaches for diverse populations and contexts.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Confirmation bias operates largely outside conscious awareness.
“This is particularly problematic because confirmation bias operates largely outside conscious awareness;”
From Complacent, Not Sycophantic: Reframing Large Language Models and Designing AI Literacy for Complacent Machines (2026) · cites this paper as [19]
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
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…to approach information congruent with their beliefs and knowledge with greater skepticism, leading to more careful scrutiny and analysis before accepting or spreading potentially misleading information, which aligns with the general concept of analytical and intuitive processing theory (15, 23).”
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
Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2 · Cited by 1,155 · see citing works
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/jopy.12476 · Cited by 879 · see citing works
The 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
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- [1]Gordon M. Lying in politics: fake news, alternative facts, and the challenges for deliberative civics education. Educ Theory. (2018) 68: 49– 64. doi: 10.1111/edth.12288 · DOI
- [2]Rocha YM de Moura GA Desidério GA de Oliveira CH Lourenço FD de Figueiredo Nicolete LD. The impact of fake news on social media and its influence on health during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Public Health. (2023) 31: 1007– 16. doi: 10.1007/s10389-021-01658-z, PMID: 34660175 PMC8502082 · DOI
- [4]Arrese Á. Cultural dimensions of fake news exposure: a cross-National Analysis among European Union countries. Mass Commun Soc. (2024) 27: 827– 50. doi: 10.1080/15205436.2022.2123278 · DOI
- [5]Oyserman D Dawson A. Your fake news, our facts: Identiti-based motivation shapes what we believe, share, and accept. In: Rainer Greifeneder MJ Newman E Schwarz N, editors. The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation. New York: Routledge (2020). 173– 95.
- [6]Iacobucci G. Vaccination:“fake news” on social media may be harming UK uptake, report warns. BMJ. (2019) 364: 364. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l365, PMID: 30674463 · DOI
- [7]Bernard R Bowsher G Sullivan R Gibson-Fall F. Disinformation and epidemics: anticipating the next phase of biowarfare. Health Secur. (2021) 19: 3– 12. doi: 10.1089/hs.2020.0038, PMID: 33090030 PMC9195489 · DOI
- [10]Gwiaździński P Gundersen AB Piksa M Krysińska I Kunst JR Noworyta K. Psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media: a scoping review. Front Psych. (2023) 13: 974782. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.974782, PMID: 36684016 PMC9849948 · DOI
- [11]Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econ Perspect. (2005) 19: 25– 42. doi: 10.1257/089533005775196732 · DOI · Paper page
- [12]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. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011 29935897 · DOI · Paper page
- [16]Gwebu KL Wang J Zifla E. Can warnings curb the spread of fake news? The interplay between warning, trust and confirmation bias. Behav Inform Technol. (2022) 41: 3552– 73. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2021.2002932 · DOI
- [17]Rassin E. Individual differences in the susceptibility to confirmation bias. Netherlands. J Psychol. (2008) 64: 87– 93. doi: 10.1007/BF03076410 · DOI
- [18]Klayman J. Varieties of confirmation Bias. In: Busemeyer J Hastie R Medin DL, editors. Psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 32. San Diego, CA: Academic Press (1995). 385– 418.
- [19]Hershberger PJ Part HM Markert RJ Cohen SM Finger WW. Teaching awareness of cognitive bias in medical decision making. Acad Med. (1995) 70: 661. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199508000-00004 7646736 · DOI
- [20]Piksa M Noworyta K Gundersen A Kunst J Morzy M Piasecki J. Are we willing to share what we believe is true? Factors influencing susceptibility to fake news. Front Psych. (2023) 14: 1165103. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1165103, PMID: 37654985 PMC10467258 · DOI
- [21]Zhou Y Shen L. Confirmation Bias and the persistence of misinformation on climate change. Commun Res. (2022) 49: 500– 23. doi: 10.1177/00936502211028049 · DOI · Paper page
- [22]Schwind C Buder J. Reducing confirmation bias and evaluation bias: when are preference-inconsistent recommendations effective – and when not? Comput Hum Behav. (2012) 28: 2280– 90. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.035 · DOI
- [24]Morewedge CK Yoon H Scopelliti I Symborski CW Korris JH Kassam KS. Debiasing decisions:improved decision making with a single training intervention. Policy Insights Behav Brain Sci. (2015) 2: 129– 40. doi: 10.1177/2372732215600886 · DOI
- [25]Roozenbeek J Schneider CR Dryhurst S Kerr J Freeman ALJ Recchia G. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. (2020) 7: 201199. doi: 10.1098/rsos.201199 33204475 PMC7657933 · DOI · Paper page
- [26]Maertens R Götz FM Golino H Roozenbeek J Schneider CR Kerr JR. The misinformation susceptibility test (MIST): a psychometrically validated measure of news veracity discernment. PsyArXiv. (2021). doi: 10.31234/osf.io/gk68h PMC10991074 37382812 · DOI
- [27]Xu S Coman IA Yamamoto M Najera CJ. Exposure effects or confirmation Bias? Examining reciprocal dynamics of misinformation, misperceptions, and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines. Health Commun. (2023) 38: 2210– 20. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2059802 35414311 · DOI
- [28]Thornhill C Meeus Q Peperkamp J Berendt B. A digital nudge to counter confirmation Bias. Front Big Data. (2019) 2: 11. doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00011, PMID: 33693334 PMC7931917 · DOI
- [29]Kahan DM. Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgm Decis Mak. (2013) 8: 407– 24. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500005271 · DOI · Paper page
- [33]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– 13. doi: 10.1037/xge0000729, PMID: 31916834 · DOI · Paper page
- [34]Shikatani B Antony MM Kuo JR Cassin SE. The impact of cognitive restructuring and mindfulness strategies on postevent processing and affect in social anxiety disorder. J Anxiety Disord. (2014) 28: 570– 9. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.05.012, PMID: 24983798 · DOI
- [35]Swire B Berinsky AJ Lewandowsky S Ecker UKH. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the trump phenomenon. R Soc Open Sci. (2017) 4: 160802. doi: 10.1098/rsos.160802, PMID: 28405366 PMC5383823 · DOI
- [36]Krämer W. Kahneman, D. (2011): thinking, fast and slow. Stat Pap. (2014) 55: 915. doi: 10.1007/s00362-013-0533-y · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Generative artificial intelligence–mediated confirmation bias in health information seeking
Lopez‐Lopez, E., Abels, C. M., Holford, D., Herzog, S. M., & Lewandowsky, S. (2025) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15413 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Germani, F., & Spitale, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.14544 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Piksa, M., Noworyta, K., Gundersen, A., Kunst, J., Morzy, M., Piasecki, J., & Rygula, R.
- Affiliations
- Maj Institute of Pharmacology (PL)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Jagiellonian University (PL)
- Venue
- Frontiers in Public Health
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2024-10-15
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 1414864-1414864
- ISSN
- 2296-2565 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11518834
- OpenAlex
- W4403440427
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13
- FWCI
- 10.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
- Keywords
- confirmation bias, misinformation susceptibility, COVID-19 vaccine attitudes, vaccine hesitancy, cognitive biases, targeted interventions, public health communication
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, COVID-19 Vaccines, Adult, Awareness, Communication, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Vaccination, Bias, Young Adult
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
