Cognitive reflection is associated with greater truth discernment for COVID-19 headlines, less trust but greater use of formal information sources, and greater willingness to pay for masks among social media users in Pakistan

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

We evaluated the relationship between individual differences in cognitive reflection and the ability to discern between true and false COVID-19 information, trust in information sources for receiving COVID-19 information and willingness to pay (WTP) for masks, using a sample of 621 low- and middle-income users in Pakistan. To capture WTP, participants play an incentive-compatible game involving real stakes. We find that higher cognitive reflection test (CRT) scores are associated with greater truth discernment for COVID-19 headlines, less trust but greater use of formal information sources, and greater WTP for KN95 masks. Thus, interventions to improve discernment of COVID-19 information should target users who rely on intuition and less on cognitive reflection.

Related collections

Most cited references 33

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The science of fake news

Emily A. Thorson, David M J Lazer, Matthew Baum … (2018)

0 comments Cited 692 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making

Shane Frederick (2005)

0 comments Cited 562 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate.

Jonathan Evans, Keith E Stanovich (2013)

Dual-process and dual-system theories in both cognitive and social psychology have been subjected to a number of recently published criticisms. However, they have been attacked as a category, incorrectly assuming there is a generic version that applies to all. We identify and respond to 5 main lines of argument made by such critics. We agree that some of these arguments have force against some of the theories in the literature but believe them to be overstated. We argue that the dual-processing distinction is supported by much recent evidence in cognitive science. Our preferred theoretical approach is one in which rapid autonomous processes (Type 1) are assumed to yield default responses unless intervened on by distinctive higher order reasoning processes (Type 2). What defines the difference is that Type 2 processing supports hypothetical thinking and load heavily on working memory. © The Author(s) 2013.

0 comments Cited 466 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review

Abbreviated Title: HKS Misinfo Review

Publisher: Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics, and Public Policy

Publication date (Electronic): July 12 2022

Publication date (Print): July 12 2022

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Economics, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan

[2 ]Department of Computer Science, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan

Article

DOI: 10.37016/mr-2020-101

SO-VID: f25b6bac-2972-4784-a4f6-666826c45701

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.