Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 22, 2025

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
Published on: May 3, 2016
Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia
Matthew S Nurse1, Robert M Ross2, Ozan Isler3
1Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. matthew.nurse@anu.edu.au.
Abstract:
The classical account of reasoning posits that analytic thinking weakens belief in COVID-19 misinformation. We tested this account in a demographically representative sample of 742 Australians. Participants completed a performance-based measure of analytic thinking (the Cognitive Reflection Test) and were randomized to groups in which they either rated the perceived accuracy of claims about COVID-19 or indicated whether they would be willing to share these claims. Half of these claims were previously debunked misinformation, and half were statements endorsed by public health agencies. We found that participants with higher analytic thinking levels were less likely to rate COVID-19 misinformation as accurate and were less likely to be willing to share COVID-19 misinformation. These results support the classical account of reasoning for the topic of COVID-19 misinformation and extend it to the Australian context.
Related Concept Videos
The Availability Heuristic
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
Social Proof
Unrealistic Optimism Bias
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Confirmation Biases

