Cognitively verify,then trust: Association of the cognitive process for news verification with media trust in responding to perceived false information
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026
Cognitively verify,then trust: Association of the cognitive process for news verification with media trust in responding to perceived false information
False information can hinder individuals’ cognitive processes for news verification, potentially confusing members of the public and sowing distrust in information sources. The maxim “trust, but verify” has long been commonly used in information processing, but the updated maxim “verify, then trust” proposes a principle by which people first evaluate the truthfulness of the information they come across by examining its source and seeking validation from authoritative experts. Based on a survey of U.S. adults, the author examines the role of the need for cognition (NFC) on perceived exposure to false information (PEFI) and news verification behaviors, in combination with the strategy, “verify, then trust.” The results of a serial mediation analysis suggest that, while PEFI is linked to decreased trust in media, NFC can have the opposite association when mediated by PEFI and news verification, offering broader insight into the significance of cognitive thinking in news consumption behaviors. By integrating multiple theoretical frameworks, this study highlights the joint endeavors of audiences and journalists.
AudiRLoughranTMcDonaldB (2016) Trust, but verify: MD&A language and the role of trust in corporate culture. Journal of Business Ethics139(3): 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2659-4
2.
AustinEWMuldrowAAustinBW (2016) Examining how media literacy and personality factors predict skepticism toward alcohol advertising. Journal of Health Communication21(5): 600–609. https://doi.org/10.10810730.2016.1153761
BarghJAChenMBurrowsL (1996) Automaticity of social behavior: direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(2): 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230
5.
BerzonskyMDSullivanC (1992) Social-cognitive aspects of identity style: need for cognition, experiential openness, and introspection. Journal of Adolescent Research7(2): 140–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489272002
6.
BillardTJMoranRE (2023) Designing trust: design style, political ideology, and trust in “Fake” news websites. Digital Journalism11(3): 519–546. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2087098
BucyEPNewhagenJE (2019) Fake news finds an audience. In: JamiesonKEKenskiKH (eds) Journalism and Truth in an Age of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–222.
ChanM (2024) News literacy, fake news recognition, and authentication behaviors after exposure to fake news on social media. New Media & Society26(8): 2046–2066. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221127675
11.
ChangCMcDanielE (1995) Information search strategies in loosely structured settings. Journal of Educational Computing Research12(1): 95–107. https://doi.org/10.2190/0bk5-6x68-h0e9-jkba
12.
ChenXSinSThengY, et al. (2015) Why students share misinformation on social media: motivation, gender, and study-level differences. The Journal of Academic Librarianship41(5): 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.07.003
13.
CrawfordMTSkowronskiJJ (1998) When motivated thought leads to heightened bias: high need for cognition can enhance the impact of stereotypes on memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin24(10): 1075–1088. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672982410005
14.
EdgerlySMourãoRRThorsonE, et al. (2020) When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(1): 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019864680
15.
FallisD (2004) On verifying the accuracy of information: philosophical perspectives. Library Trends52(3): 463–487. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1509153
16.
FergusonMJBarghJA (2004) How social perception can automatically influence behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences8(1): 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.004
17.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
18.
FirestoneCSchollBJ (2016) Cognition does not affect perception: evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences39: e229. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x15000965
19.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2000) Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700304
GordonM (2018) Lying in politics: fake news, alternative facts, and the challenges for deliberative civics education. Educational Theory68(1): 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12288
22.
GregoryRL (1970) The Intelligent Eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
23.
HameleersMBrosiusAde VreeseCH (2022) Whom to trust? Media exposure patterns of citizens with perceptions of misinformation and disinformation related to the news media. European Journal of Communication37(3): 237–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211072667
24.
HaugtvedtCPettyR (1992) Personality and persuasion: need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude changes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63(2): 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.308
25.
IretonCPosettiJ (2018) Journalism, ‘Fake News’ & Disinformation. Handbook for Journalism Education & Training. UNESCO Series on Journalism Education.
26.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (2000) Using is believing: the influence of reliance on the credibility of online political information among politically interested internet users. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(4): 865–889. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700409
27.
Jones-JangSMKimDHKenskiK (2021) Perceptions of mis- or disinformation exposure predict political cynicism: evidence from a two-wave survey during the 2018 US midterm elections. New Media & Society23(10): 3105–3125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820943878
28.
KenskiKStroudNJ (2006) Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media50(2): 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
29.
KeyesR (2004) The Post-truth Era: Dishonesty and Deception in Contemporary Life. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
30.
KovachBRosenstielT (2011) Blur: How to Know What’s True in the Age of Information Overload. New York: Bloomsbury.
31.
KwandaFLinT (2020) Fake news practices in Indonesian newsrooms during and after the Palu earthquake: a hierarchy-of-influences approach. Information, Communication & Society23(6): 849–866. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118x.2020.1759669
32.
LaddJ (2012) Why Americans Hate the Media and How it Matters. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
33.
LaTourKALaTourMSBrainerdC (2014) Fuzzy trace theory and “smart” false memories: implications for advertising. Journal of Advertising43(1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.811706
LedingJKAntonioL (2019) Need for cognition and discrepancy detection in the misinformation effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology31(4): 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2019.1626400
36.
LeeTJohnsonTJSturm WilkersonH (2022) You can’t handle the lies!: exploring the role of Gamson hypothesis in explaining third-person perceptions of being fooled by fake news and fake news sharing. Mass Communication & Society26(3): 414–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2026401
37.
LewandowskySEckerUKHCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
38.
Lins de Holanda CoelhoGHanelPWolfL (2020) The very efficient assessment of need for cognition: developing a six-item version. Assessment27(8): 1870–1885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118793208
39.
MarkovČMinY (2022) Understanding the public’s animosity toward news media: cynicism and distrust as related but distinct negative media perceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly99(4): 1099–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990211061764
40.
MarkovČMinY (2023) Unpacking public animosity toward professional journalism: a qualitative analysis of the differences between media distrust and cynicism. Journalism24(10): 2136–2154. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849221122064
41.
MetzgerMJFlanaganAJEyalK, et al. (2003) Credibility for the 21st century: integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In: KalbfleischPJ (ed) Communication Yearbook 27. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 257–292.
MokhtariHDavarpanahMRDayyaniMH, et al. (2013) Students’ need for cognition affects their information seeking behavior. New Library World114(11/12): 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/nlw-07-2013-0060
45.
MorNReichZ (2018) From “Trust me” to “Show me” journalism: can DocumentCloud help to restore the deteriorating credibility of news?Journalism Practice12(9): 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1376593
46.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32(2): 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
47.
OgnyanovaKLazerDRobertsonRE, et al. (2020) Misinformation in action: fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1(4): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-024
48.
ParkH (2018) Trust but verify: Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un and a denuclearizing North Korea after the Singapore summit. East Asian Policy10(3): 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1793930518000235
QuiringOZiegeleMSchemerC, et al. (2021) Constructive skepticism, dysfunctional cynicism? Skepticism and cynicism differently determine generalized media trust. Journal of International Communication15(4): 3497–3518. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/16127
51.
RobertsonCTMourãoRR (2020) Faking alternative journalism? An analysis of self-presentations of “fake news” sites. Digital Journalism8(8): 1011–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1743193
52.
RomerDJamiesonKH (2020) Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Social Science & Medicine263: 113356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
53.
SampleCJusticeCDarrajE (2019) A Model for Evaluating Fake News. The Cyber Defense Review Special Edition, 171–192. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26846127
54.
SchranzMSchneiderJEiseneggerM (2018) Media trust and media use. In: OttoKKöhlerA (eds) Trust in Media and Journalism: Empirical Perspectives on Ethics, Norms, Impacts and Populism in Europe. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 3–92.
StrömbäckJTsfatiYBoomgaardenH, et al. (2020) News media trust and its impact on media use: toward a framework for future research. Annals of the International Communication Association44(2): 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1755338
57.
SunY (2022) Verification upon exposure to COVID-19 misinformation: predictors, outcomes, and the mediating role of verification. Science Communication44(3): 261–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221088927
58.
SunsteinCR (2017) #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TidwellPSSadowskiCJPateLM (2000) Relationships between need for cognition, knowledge, and verbal ability. Journal of Psychology134(6): 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980009598242
64.
TongCGillHLiJ, et al. (2020) “Fake news is anything they say!”: conceptualization and weaponization of fake news among the American public. Mass Communication & Society23(5): 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1789661
65.
ToppinoTCLongGM (2005) Top-down and bottom-up processes in the perception of reversible figures: toward a hybrid model. In: OhtaNMcLeodCMUttlB (eds) Dynamic Cognitive Processes. Tokyo: Springer, pp. 37–58.
66.
TorresRGerhartNNegahbanA (2018) Epistemology in the era of fake news: an exploration of information verification behaviors among social networking site users. ACM SIGMIS - Data Base: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems49(3): 78–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242734.3242740
67.
TsfatiY (2010) Online news exposure and trust in the mainstream media: exploring possible associations. American Behavioral Scientist54(1): 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376309
68.
TsfatiYBarnoyA (2025) Media cynicism, media skepticism and automatic media trust: explicating their connection with news processing and exposure. Communication Research00936502251327717. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251327717
69.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30(5): 504–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253371
70.
TsfatiYStrömbäckJLindgrenE, et al. (2023) What news outlets do people have in mind when they answer survey questions about trust in media?International Journal of Public Opinion Research35(2): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edad008
71.
VolzYLeeF (2012) Who wins the Pulitzer prize in international reporting? Cumulative advantage and social stratification in journalism. Journalism14(5): 587–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884912455905
WalterNEdgerlySSaucierC (2021) “Trust, then verify”: when and why people fact-check partisan information. International Journal of Communication15: 4734–4754. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17325
XiaoXSuYLeeDK (2021) Who consumes new media content more wisely? Examining personality factors, SNS use, and new media literacy in the era of misinformation. Social Media + Society7(1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305121990635
77.
ZhaoXTsangS (2022) Self‐protection by fact‐checking: how pandemic information seeking and verifying affect preventive behaviours. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management30(2): 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12372
78.
ZubiagaAJiH (2014) Tweet, but verify: epistemic study of information verification on Twitter. Social Network Analysis and Mining4(1): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-014-0163-y
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
