Researchers across many disciplines seek to understand how misinformation spreads with a view toward limiting its impact. One important question in this research is how people determine whether a given piece of news is real or fake. In the current article, we discuss the value of signal detection theory (SDT) in disentangling two distinct aspects in the identification of fake news: (a) ability to accurately distinguish between real news and fake news and (b) response biases to judge news as real or fake regardless of news veracity. The value of SDT for understanding the determinants of fake-news beliefs is illustrated with reanalyses of existing data sets, providing more nuanced insights into how partisan bias, cognitive reflection, and prior exposure influence the identification of fake news. Implications of SDT for the use of source-related information in the identification of fake news, interventions to improve people’s skills in detecting fake news, and the debunking of misinformation are discussed.
BagoB.RandD. G.PennycookG. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1608–1613.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BlackwellH. R. (1953). Psychophysical thresholds: Experimental studies of methods of measurement (University of Michigan Research Institute Bulletin 36). University of Michigan.
4.
BrashierN. M.MarshE. J. (2020). Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499–515.
5.
BryanJ. (2019). googlesheets4: Access Google Sheets using the Sheets API V4 (Version 0.1.0) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=googlesheets4
6.
ButtonK. S.IoannidisJ. P. A.MokryszC.NosekB. A.FlintJ.RobinsonE. S. J.MunafoM. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 1–12.
7.
ChanM.-P.JonesC. R.JamiesonK. H.AlbarracínD. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28, 1531–1546.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9.
ConroyN. J.RubinV. L.ChenY. (2015). Automatic deception detection: Methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 52, 1–4.
10.
CurranP. J.HussongA. M. (2009). Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets. Psychological Methods, 14, 81–100.
11.
DittoP. H.LopezD. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568–584.
12.
DubeC.RotelloC. M.HeitE. (2010). Assessing the belief bias effect with ROCs: It’s a response bias effect. Psychological Review, 117, 831–863.
13.
EffronD. A.RajM. (2020). Misinformation and morality: Encountering fake-news headlines makes them seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychological Science, 31, 75–87.
14.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.
15.
GawronskiB. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. Social Cognition, 30, 652–668.
16.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2015). Theory evaluation. In GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (Eds.), Theory and explanation in social psychology (pp. 3–23). Guilford Press.
17.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley.
18.
GreifenederR.JafféM.NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (Eds.). (2020). The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation. Routledge.
19.
HautusM. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 46–51.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 513–541.
22.
JaegerB. C.EdwardsL. J.DasK.SenP. K. (2017). An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the generalized linear mixed model. Journal of Applied Statistics, 44, 1086–1105.
23.
Johnson-LairdP. N.GirottoV.LegrenziP. (2004). Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. Psychological Review, 111, 640–661.
24.
JuddC. M.KennyD. A.McClellandG. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134.
25.
JuddC. M.McClellandG. H.RyanC. S. (2017). Data analysis: A model comparison approach to regression, ANOVA, and beyond (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
26.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2017). Experiments with more than one random factor: Designs, analytic models, and statistical power. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 601–628.
27.
KahanD. M. (2017). Misconceptions, misinformation, and the logic of identity-protective cognition (Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973067
28.
KahanD. M.PetersE.DawsonE. C.SlovicP. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioral Public Policy, 1, 54–86.
29.
KruglanskiA.RavivA.Bar-TalD.RavivA.SharvitK.EllisS.BarR.PierroA.MannettiL. (2005). Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 345–392). Academic Press.
30.
KruglanskiA.WebsterD. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “Seizing and freezing.”Psychological Review, 103, 263–283.
31.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
32.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.MetzgerM. J.NyhanB.PennycookG.RothschildD.SchudsonM.SlomanS. A.SunsteinC. R.ThorsonE. A.WattsD. J.ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news: Addressing fake news requires a multidisciplinary effort. Science, 359, 1094–1096.
33.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.
34.
MacmillanN. A.CreelmanC. D. (2004). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Taylor & Francis.
35.
MaxwellS. E.LauM. Y.HowardG. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does “failure to replicate” really mean?American Psychologist, 70, 487–498.
36.
McGrewS.SmithM.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT.WindeburgS. (2019). Improving university students’ web savvy: An intervention study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 485–500.
37.
MickesL.WixtedJ. T. (in press). Eyewitness memory. In KahanaM. J.WagnerA. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human memory. Oxford University Press.
PayneB. K.CorrellJ. (2020). Race, weapons, and the perception of threat. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 1–50). Academic Press.
40.
PennycookG.CannonT. D.RandD. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases the perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147, 1865–1880.
41.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50.
42.
PilditchT. D.MadsenJ. K.CustersR. (2020). False prophets and Cassandra’s curse: The role of credibility in belief updating. Acta Psychologica, 202, Article 102956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102956
43.
RappD. N.BraaschJ. L. G. (2014). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. MIT Press.
44.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.0) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org
45.
ReberR.UnkelbachC. (2010). The epistemic status of fluency as source for judgments of truth. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, 563–581.
46.
RudisB. (2019). hrbrthemes: Additional themes, theme components and utilities for “ggplot2” (Version 0.6.0) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=hrbrthemes
47.
SchwarzN.JalbertM. (2020). When fake news feels true intuitions of truth and the acceptance and correction of misinformation. In GreifenederR.JafféM.NewmanE. J.SchwarzN. (Eds.), The psychology of fake news: Accepting, sharing, and correcting misinformation (pp. 73–90). Routledge.
48.
SchwarzN.SannaL.SkurnikI.YoonC. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 127–161). Academic Press.
49.
SingmannH.BolkerB.WestfallJ.AustF.Ben-ShacharM. S. (2020). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (Version 0.28-0) [Computer software]. Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=afex
50.
SnodgrassJ. G.CorwinJ. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
51.
StanislavH.TodorovN. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31, 137–149.
52.
SteblayN. K.DysartJ. E.WellsG. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 17, 99–139.
53.
TörnbergP. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLOS ONE, 13(9), Article e0203958. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203958
54.
UnkelbachC. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219–230.
55.
UnkelbachC.KochA.SilvaR. R.Garcia-MarquesT. (2019). Truth by repetition: Explanations and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 247–253.
56.
Van BavelJ. J.PereiraA. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22, 213–224.
57.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT. L.MillerE.BacheS.Milton, MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD. P.. . . YutaniH. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), Article 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
58.
WilsonB. M.HarrisC. R.WixtedJ. T. (2020). Science is not a signal detection problem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 117, 5559–5567.
59.
WineburgS.McGrewS.BreakstoneJ.OrtegaT. (2016). Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Stanford Digital Repository. http://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934
60.
WixtedJ. T. (2020). The forgotten history of signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46, 201–233.
61.
WixtedJ. T.MickesL.DunnJ. C.ClarkS. E.WellsW. (2016). Estimating the reliability of eyewitness identifications from police lineups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113, 304–309.
