Home⇛Journal of Interdisciplinary Perspectives⇛vol. 3 no. 10 (2025)

Cognitive Reflection and Vulnerability to Misinformation among High School Students: Correlational Study

Rafael Jasper A. Cabanado | Crystel Mae T. Aranduque | Ria Mae B. Alpino | Joseph S. Callanta | Paulene Joy B. Tolentino | Hazelyn H. Dela Cruz

Discipline: Childhood and Youth Studies

 

Abstract:

With the advent of modern means of communication during the twenty-first century, misinformation travels as fast as factual information. Hence, this study explores the relationship between cognitive reflection and vulnerability to misinformation. Using the descriptive correlational research design, 346 high school students who are Facebook users participated in the study. Anchored on the cognitive reflection test MCQ-4 and the vulnerability to misinformation scale, Pearson correlation was used to identify the relationship between these variables of the study. High School students reported a low level of cognitive reflection, indicating that they have a low tendency to hide their intuitive thoughts and are more guided by their quick thoughts. On the other hand, individuals with a moderate level of vulnerability to misinformation exhibit a moderate difficulty in evaluating the authenticity of online information and differentiating facts from fiction. Consequently, they tend to construe fake information as real. There was a significant negative relationship between these variables. The less they engage in slow, laborious, and analytical thinking, the more vulnerable they are to believing in fake news. It is recommended that more factors be explored that could moderate the relationship between these two to foster analytical thinking and lessen the vulnerabilities of high school students to fall for fake news.



References:

  1. Ahmed, S., Madrid-Morales, D., & Tully, M. (2023). Online political engagement, cognitive skills and engagement with misinformation: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa and the United States. Online Information Review, 47(5), 989–1008. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2021-0634
  2. Ali, A., & Qazi, I. A. (2022). 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. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-101
  3. Al Zou’bi, R. (2022). The impact of media and information literacy on students’ acquisition of the skills needed to detect fake news. Journal of Media Literacy Education Pre-Prints. https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/jmle-preprints/28
  4. Belmonte, Z. J. A., Prasetyo, Y. T., Cahigas, M. M., Young, M. N., Nadlifatin, R., & Decapia, R. F. (2024). Exploring the impact of social media usage on filipino students’ learning outcomes during the covid-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the 2024 8th International Conference on Digital Technology in Education (ICDTE), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3696230.3696249
  5. Bhandari, P. (2021). Correlational research | Definition, methods and examples. Scribbr. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/2c6d8z43
  6. Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Wineburg, S., Rapaport, A., Jill, C., Garland, M., & Saavedra, A. R. (2021). Students’ civic online reasoning: A national portrait. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3816075
  7. Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2022). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (10th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.
  8. Department of Education. (2019). PISA 2018 Philippine national report. Department of Education. https://tinyurl.com/3t4ubmnj
  9. Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J., & Viruleg, E. (2021). COVID-19 and learning loss—Disparities grow and students need help. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com
  10. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
  11. Faragó, L., Orosz, G., Paskuj, B., & Krekó, P. (2024). Analytic adolescents prevail over fake news: A large-scale preregistered study. Personality and Individual Differences, 229, 112747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112747
  12. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
  13. Gaw, M. F., & Soriano, C. R. R. (2022). Broadcasting anti‐media populism in the Philippines: YouTube influencers, networked political brokerage, and implications for governance. Policy & Internet, 14(3), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.322
  14. Greškovičová, K., Masaryk, R., Synak, N., & Čavojová, V. (2022). Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 940903. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940903
  15. Herrero-Diz, P., Conde-Jiménez, J., & Reyes de Cózar, S. (2020). Teens’ motivations to spread fake news on WhatsApp. Social Media + Society, 6(3), 205630512094287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120942879
  16. Ivory, M. (2022). The soft skills of software learning development: The psychological dimensions of computing and security behaviours. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE 2022) (pp. 317–322). https://doi.org/10.1145/3530019.3535344
  17. Kim, H. K., & Tandoc, E. C. (2022). Consequences of online misinformation on COVID-19: Two potential pathways and disparity by eHealth literacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 783909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.783909
  18. Lalu, G. P. (2022). Robredo: World watching PH, intrigued by misinformation nightmare. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/5xumbsxy
  19. Lalu, G. P. (2022). “Fake news” a problem in PH? 9 in 10 Filipinos agree, says Pulse Asia. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/mw79vr4s
  20. Lees, J., McCarter, A., & Sarno, D. M. (2022). Twitter’s disputed tags may be ineffective at reducing belief in fake news and only reduce intentions to share fake news among Democrats and Independents. Journal of Online Trust and Safety, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.54501/jots.v1i3.39
  21. Luo, H., Cai, M., & Cui, Y. (2021). Spread of misinformation in social networks: Analysis based on Weibo tweets. Security and Communication Networks, 2021, 7999760. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7999760
  22. Mindrila, D., & Balentyne, P. (2019). Scatterplots and correlation (p. 9). University of West Georgia. https://tinyurl.com/mrwh7rc6
  23. Moneva, J. C., Yaun, R. M. N., & Desabille, I. (2020). Fake news: Logical reasoning ability and students’ vulnerability. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(3). https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v10-i3/7090
  24. Mosleh, M., Pennycook, G., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2021). Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nature Communications, 12, 921. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20043-0
  25. Nygren, T., & Guath, M. (2019). Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility. Nordicom Review, 40(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0002
  26. OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing.
  27. Rodríguez-Moreno, J., Ortiz-Colón, A. M., Cordón-Pozo, E., & Agreda-Montoro, M. (2021). The influence of digital tools and social networks on the digital competence of university students during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(6), 2835. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18062835
  28. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1994.1033
  29. Shu, K., Sliva, A., Wang, S., Tang, J., & Liu, H. (2019). Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ArXiv:1708.01967 [cs]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01967
  30. Stecula, D. A., & Pickup, M. (2021). Social media, cognitive reflection, and conspiracy beliefs. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 647957. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.647957
  31. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2014). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the cognitive reflection test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
  32. Van der Linden, S. (2022). Misinformation: Susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nature Medicine, 28(3), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6
  33. Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2020). Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: Using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, 37(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716500
  34. Vraga, E. K., Tully, M., & Bode, L. (2020). Empowering users to respond to misinformation about COVID-19. Media and Communication, 8(2), 475–479. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.3200
  35. Ward, A. F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., & Bos, M. W. (2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic