IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v9y2025i4d10.1038_s41562-024-02086-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spotting false news and doubting true news: a systematic review and meta-analysis of news judgements

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Pfänder

    (ENS, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS)

  • Sacha Altay

    (University of Zurich)

Abstract

How good are people at judging the veracity of news? We conducted a systematic literature review and pre-registered meta-analysis of 303 effect sizes from 67 experimental articles evaluating accuracy ratings of true and fact-checked false news (NParticipants = 194,438 from 40 countries across 6 continents). We found that people rated true news as more accurate than false news (Cohen’s d = 1.12 [1.01, 1.22]) and were better at rating false news as false than at rating true news as true (Cohen’s d = 0.32 [0.24, 0.39]). In other words, participants were able to discern true from false news and erred on the side of skepticism rather than credulity. We found no evidence that the political concordance of the news had an effect on discernment, but participants were more skeptical of politically discordant news (Cohen’s d = 0.78 [0.62, 0.94]). These findings lend support to crowdsourced fact-checking initiatives and suggest that, to improve discernment, there is more room to increase the acceptance of true news than to reduce the acceptance of fact-checked false news.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Pfänder & Sacha Altay, 2025. "Spotting false news and doubting true news: a systematic review and meta-analysis of news judgements," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 688-699, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02086-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02086-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-02086-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-024-02086-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:9:y:2025:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-024-02086-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.