Virtual space and social media studies

Virtual space and social media studies

Cognitive predictors of the Fake News Detection Ability: A systematic Review Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Bita Shalani 1
Saeid Sadeghi 2
Hamid Pouretemad
1 Postdoctoral researcher, Department of Rehabilitation and Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences (ICBS), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant professor, Department of Rehabilitation and Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences (ICBS), Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. Email: Sae_sadeghi@sbu.ac.ir
10.22083/cssms.2025.514903.1050
Abstract
Introduction:  The rapid growth of digital media and social networking platforms has substantially increased the dissemination of fake news, posing serious challenges to individuals’ ability to form accurate beliefs that are essential for sound personal and social functioning. Fake news, typically presented in the format of legitimate news but lacking verifiable evidence, can mislead audiences and shape attitudes, decisions, and behaviors. While technological and informational approaches, such as fact-checking tools and media literacy programs, have been widely promoted, recent psychological research suggests that susceptibility to fake news is deeply rooted in individuals’ cognitive processes rather than in a mere lack of knowledge. Drawing on dual-process theories of cognition, which distinguish between fast, intuitive processing and slow, analytical reasoning, the present systematic review aims to synthesize empirical evidence on the cognitive predictors of fake news detection. Specifically, this review seeks to identify key cognitive abilities and thinking dispositions that influence individuals’ capacity to detect, believe in, and share fake news, thereby providing a theoretical and empirical foundation for cognitively informed media literacy interventions.
Method: This study adopted a qualitative systematic review methodology. Comprehensive searches were conducted across national databases (ISC, SID, and IranDoc) and international databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) without time restrictions. Search terms included combinations of keywords related to fake news and cognition, such as fake news, misinformation, attention, memory, cognitive flexibility, thinking, critical thinking, cognitive skills, and executive functions. After removing duplicate records, two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts based on predefined inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were empirical research articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English or Persian that explicitly examined cognitive variables associated with fake news detection, belief, or sharing. Meta-analyses, conference papers, books, and non-English studies were excluded. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. From each study, data were extracted on authorship, year of publication, sample characteristics, cognitive constructs examined, research design, instruments used, and key findings. The results were synthesized narratively and categorized according to major cognitive predictors.
Results:  Across the 17 reviewed studies, several cognitive factors consistently emerged as significant predictors of fake news detection. The most frequently examined variables were critical thinking and analytical thinking. Eight studies reported that higher levels of critical thinking were associated with an improved ability to identify fake news, as well as a reduced likelihood of liking or sharing misleading content. Six studies identified analytical thinking as a robust negative predictor of belief in fake news and a positive predictor of accurate discrimination between real and fake news headlines. Additional cognitive predictors included thinking style and thinking dispositions, particularly actively open-minded thinking, which was associated with a greater willingness to seek evidence and consider alternative explanations. One study emphasized the role of general cognitive ability, while another identified causal illusion as a key factor, demonstrating that individuals prone to perceiving spurious causal relationships were more susceptible to fake news. Overall, the findings indicate that cognitive factors influence not only the detection of fake news but also belief formation and information-sharing behaviors.
Discussion: The findings of this systematic review underscore the central role of cognitive abilities and thinking dispositions in fake news detection. Consistent with dual-process models, individuals who engage in reflective and analytical reasoning are better equipped to inhibit intuitive responses that often lead to the uncritical acceptance of misinformation. Critical thinking appears to function as a cognitive safeguard, enabling individuals to evaluate sources, assess evidence, and tolerate uncertainty when confronted with ambiguous or misleading information. In contrast, reliance on intuitive processing, low engagement in actively open-minded thinking, and susceptibility to causal illusions increase vulnerability to fake news. Importantly, these cognitive factors are not fixed traits and can be strengthened through targeted educational interventions. The results suggest that media literacy programs are likely to be most effective when they go beyond technical skills and explicitly focus on enhancing critical and analytical thinking, fostering open-minded evaluation, and reducing common cognitive biases. Integrating cognitively oriented training into educational curricula from early stages may therefore play a crucial role in reducing the spread of fake news and improving the quality of individual and societal decision-making.
Keywords
Keywords: Fake news
cognitive functions
critical thinking
systematic review
Subjects
Ahmed, S. (2022). Disinformation sharing thrives with fear of missing out among low cognitive news users: A cross-national examination of intentional sharing of deep fakes.‌Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,‌66(1), 89-109.
Ahmed, W., Vidal-alaball, J., Downing, J., & Seguí, F. L. (2020). COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory : Social network analysis of Twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), Article e19458. https://doi.org/10.2196/19458
Alaybek, B., Wang, Y., Dalal, R. S., Dubrow, S., & Boemerman, L. S. (2021). Meta-analytic relations between thinking styles and intelligence.‌Personality and Individual Differences,‌168, 110322.
Arisoy, C., Mandal, A., & Saxena, N. (2022). Human brains can’t detect fake news: A neuro-cognitive study of textual disinformation susceptibility. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST 2022) (pp. 1-12). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/pst55820.2022.9851990 
Azizi, Z., & Moradi, M. (2024). Investigating the Role of Media Literacy in the Ability of Public Library Librarians to Detect Fake News.‌Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, [In Persian],‌10(2), 61-76.
Bakir, V., and McStay, A. (2017). Fake News and the Economy of Emotions. Digital Journalism 6 (2), 154–175. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645
Blanco, F., Barberia, I., & Matute, H. (2015). Individuals who believe in the paranormal expose themselves to biased information and develop more causal illusions than nonbelievers in the laboratory. PLoS One, 10(7), e0131378. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131378
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Bear, A., Rand, D. G., & Cannon, T. D. (2019). Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 8(1), 108–117.
Bronstein, M. V., Pennycook, G., Buonomano, L., & Cannon, T. D. (2021). Belief in fake news, responsiveness to cognitive conflict, and analytic reasoning engagement.‌Thinking & Reasoning,‌27(4), 510-535. 
Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach.‌Memory & cognition,‌42, 434-447.
Dastlan, M., Dehbozorgi, M., Moridi, B., & Emami, M. (2021). Detection of Fake Sport News Published in Instagram Social Network based on ISNA News Website: A Study on the Basis of Mining Algorithm in Persian Language.‌Journal of Sociolinguistics,‌, [In Persian],‌4(3), 91-104.
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, 107-110. 
Ennis, R. H. (2000). Goals for a critical thinking curriculum and its assessment. In A. L. Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking (pp. 44–46). ASCD
Epstein, R. L., & Kernberger, C. (2012). Critical thinking. Advanced Reasoning Forum.
Escolà-Gascón, Á., Dagnall, N., & Gallifa, J. (2021). Critical thinking predicts reductions in Spanish physicians’ stress levels and promotes fake news detection.‌Thinking skills and Creativity,‌42, 100934.
Evans, J. S. B., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate.‌Perspectives on psychological science,‌8(3), 223-241.
Faragó, L., Krekó, P., & Orosz, G. (2023). Hungarian, lazy, and biased: the role of analytic thinking and partisanship in fake news discernment on a Hungarian representative sample.‌Scientific Reports,‌13(1), 178.
Gaillard, S., Oláh, Z. A., Venmans, S., & Burke, M. (2021). Countering the cognitive, linguistic, and psychological underpinnings behind susceptibility to fake news: A review of current literature with special focus on the role of age and digital literacy.‌Frontiers in Communication,‌6, 661801.
Gordon, A., Brooks, J. C. W., Quadflieg, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing. Neuropsychologia, 106, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2017.10.003
Griffiths, O., Shehabi, N., Murphy, R. A., & Le Pelley, M. E. (2018). Superstition predicts perception of illusory control. British Journal of Psychology, 110(3), 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12344
Jia, L., Shan, J., Xu, G., & Jin, H. (2020). Influence of individual differences in working memory on the continued influence effect of misinformation.‌Journal of Cognitive Psychology,‌32(5-6), 494-505.
Kahan, D. M. (2017). Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper No. 164. Yale Law School. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2973067 
Kahneman, D. (2011). Fast and slow thinking.‌Allen Lane and Penguin Books, New York.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Fast and slow thinking.‌Allen Lane and Penguin Books, New York.
Kruijt, J., Meppelink, C. S., & Vandeberg, L. (2022). Stop and think! Exploring the role of news truth discernment, information literacy, and impulsivity in the effect of critical thinking recommendations on trust in fake COVID-19 news.‌European Journal of Health Communication,‌3(2), 40-63.
Kwek, A., Peh, L., Tan, J., & Lee, J. X. (2023). Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01813-9 
Landrum, A. R., Lull, R. B., Akin, H., Hasell, A., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). Processing the papal encyclical through perceptual filters: Pope Francis, identity‐protective cognition, and climate change concern. Cognition, 166, 1–12. doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2017.05.015
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its correction: Continued influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
Lewis, A., & Smith, D. (1993). Defining higher order thinking. Theory into Practice, 32(3), 131–137.
Li, M. H., Chen, Z., & Rao, L. L. (2022). Emotion, analytic thinking and susceptibility to misinformation during the COVID-19 outbreak.‌Computers in Human Behavior,‌133, 107295.
Lutz, B., Adam, M. T. P., Feuerriegel, S., Pröllochs, N., & Neumann, D. (2024). Which linguistic cues make people fall for fake news? A comparison of cognitive and affective processing. Proceedings of the ACM on Human–Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.03751
Lutzke, L., Drummond, C., Slovic, P., & Árvai, J. (2019). Priming critical thinking: Simple interventions limit the influence of fake news about climate change on Facebook.‌Global environmental change,‌58, 101964.
Matute, H., Blanco, F., Yarritu, I., Díaz-Lago, M., Vadillo, M. A., & Barberia, I. (2015). Illusions of causality: How they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (888), 1–14. doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888
Mazaheri, E., Mehraeen, M., Kazemi, M., & Ghiasi Shirazi, K. (2023). Presenting a Comprehensive Framework of Effective Features in Fake News Detection: a Systematic Review.‌Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, [In Persian],‌39(2), 477-502.
McDougall, J. (2019). Media literacy versus fake news: critical thinking, resilience and civic engagement.‌Media studies,‌10(19), 29-45.
Moreno-Fernández, M. M., Blanco, F., & Matute, H. (2021). The tendency to stop collecting information is linked to illusions of causality. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–15. doi.org/10.1038/S41598-021-82075-W
Mottaghi, V., Esmaeili, M., Bazaee, G. A., & Afshar Kazemi, M. A. (2021). Providing a three-dimensional tensor approach for classifying and detecting fake news-a case study of Persian news in the field of COVID-19.‌Sciences and Techniques of Information Management, [In Persian],‌7(4), 221-250.
Oh, O., Gupta, P., Agrawal, M., & Raghav Rao, H. (2018). ICT mediated rumor beliefs and resulting user actions during a community crisis. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 243–258.
Orhan, A. (2023). Fake news detection on social media: the predictive role of university students’ critical thinking dispositions and new media literacy.‌Smart Learning Environments,‌10(1), 29.
Paul, R. (1990). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019a). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning.‌Cognition,‌188, 39-50.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019b). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 2521–2526. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking.‌Journal of personality,‌88(2), 185-200.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007 
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 147(12), 1865–1880. doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection.‌Memory & Cognition,‌42, 1-10.
Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo‐profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549–563. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279
Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., Mosleh, M., Arechar, A. A., Eckles, D., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online.‌Nature,‌592(7855), 590-595.
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015a). Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 425–432. doi. org/10.1177/0963721415604610
Pennycook, G., Fugelsang, J. A., & Koehler, D. J. (2015b). What makes us think? A three-stage dual-process model of analytic engagement.‌Cognitive psychology,‌80, 34-72.
Pomichal, V., & Trnka, A. (2023). With Games Against Fake News–Developing Critical Thinking with the Help of the Card Game Follow Me.‌Media Literacy and Academic Research,‌6(1), 55-69.
Puig, B., Blanco-Anaya, P., & Pérez-Maceira, J. J. (2021). “Fake news” or real science? Critical thinking to assess information on COVID-19. Frontiers in Education, 6, 1-10.
Rahmanian, E., & Esfidani, M. R. (2023). It is probably fake but let us share it! Role of analytical thinking, overclaiming and social approval in sharing fake news.‌Journal of Creative Communications,‌18(1), 7-25.
Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J., & Barberia, I. (2021). Believers in pseudoscience present lower evidential criteria. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–7. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03816-5
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, 107-110.
Ross, R. M., Rand, D. G., & Pennycook, G. (2021). Beyond “fake news”: Analytic thinking and the detection of false and hyperpartisan news headlines. Judgment and Decision making, 16(2), 484-504.
Sa‘i, M. H., & Azadi, M. H. (2021). Strategies for Countering Fake News in News Organizations and Media in Iran. Rasaneh, [In Persian],‌32(2), 35-78. https://ensani.ir/fa/article/465734/‎
Saltor, J., Barberia, I., & Rodríguez‐Ferreiro, J. (2023). Thinking disposition, thinking style, and susceptibility to causal illusion predict fake news discriminability.‌Applied Cognitive Psychology,‌37(2), 360-368.
Scheufele, D. A., Hoffman, A. J., Neeley, L., & Reid, C. M. (2021). Misinformation about science in the public sphere. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(15). doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.2104068118
Shabani, K., Geranmayepour, A., & Hashemi, S. (2022). Ways to detect fake news in the media from the point of view of communication specialists and professionals.‌New Media Studies,‌, [In Persian],‌8(30), 233-207.
Shabani, K., Geranmayepour, A., & Hashemi, S. (2022). Ways to detect fake news in the media from the point of view of communication specialists and professionals.‌New Media Studies,‌, [In Persian],‌8(30), 233-207.
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011a). Individual differences as essential components of heuristics and biases research. In K. Manktelow, D. Over, & S. Elqayam (Eds.). The science of reason: A festschrift for Jonathan St. B. T. Evans (pp. 355–396). Hove, East Sussex, U.K: Psychology Press.
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Toplak, M. E. (2011b). Intelligence and rationality. In R. J. Sternberg, & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.). Cambridge handbook of intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swire, B., Berinsky, A. J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 160802. doi. org/10.1098/rsos.160802
Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 43(12), 1948–1961. doi.org/10. 1037/xlm0000422
Tandoc, E. C., Lee, J., Chew, M., Tan, F. X., & Goh, Z. H. (2021). Falling for fake news: the role of political bias and cognitive ability.‌Asian Journal of Communication,‌31(4), 237-253.
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., and Ling, R. (2017). Defining “Fake News”. Digital Journalism 6, 137–153. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
Taurino, A., Colucci, M. H., Bottalico, M., Franco, T. P., Volpe, G., Violante, M., ... & Laera, D. (2023). To believe or not to believe: Personality, cognitive, and emotional factors involving fake news perceived accuracy.‌Applied Cognitive Psychology,‌37(6), 1444-1454.
Torres, M. N., Barberia, I., & Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. (2020). Causal illusion as a cognitive basis of pseudoscientific beliefs. British Journal of Psychology, 111(4), 840–852. doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12441
Van Der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology, 41(1), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681
Wilson, J. A. (2018). Reducing pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs in university students through a course in science and critical thinking. Science & Education, 27, 183–210.

  • Receive Date 05 September 2025
  • Revise Date 15 December 2025
  • Accept Date 21 December 2025
  • First Publish Date 21 December 2025
  • Publish Date 22 December 2025