The Effect of Conflict Detection and Open-Mindedness in Intention to Share Misinformation
Introduction
Training in information evaluation has a significant influence on the interplay between conflict detection, open-mindedness, and an individual’s intention to share misinformation. Cognitive processes involved in evaluating information influence how people recognize and respond to conflicting information, which in turn affects their likelihood of disseminating misinformation.
Conflict Detection and its Effects on Misinformation Sharing
Conflict detection is essential for individuals who encounter information that contradicts their established beliefs or knowledge. This process stimulates critical thinking and prompts individuals to reflect on the validity of the conflicting information [1]. Research shows that cognitive training aimed at enhancing critical thinking can improve individuals’ abilities to detect conflicts in information, positioning them more favorably against misinformation. For example, findings by Verbruggen et al. [2] highlight the importance of attention in decision-making processes, which could indirectly relate to the recognition of information conflict. Thus, when individuals are trained to evaluate information rigorously, their conflict detection abilities may increase, making them less likely to share misinformation.
Open-mindedness and Conflict Resolution
Open-mindedness complements conflict detection by creating a cognitive environment conducive to embracing diverse perspectives rather than rejecting misinformation outright. Psychological safety transforms tense interactions into constructive dialogues where conflicting views can be addressed [3]. This climate fosters open-mindedness, encouraging individuals to consider multiple viewpoints before forming conclusions. The interplay between a psychologically safe environment and open-mindedness has been linked to improved cognitive flexibility and decision-making, thereby minimizing the likelihood of misinformation sharing [4].
An environment that promotes open-mindedness facilitates conflict resolution and enhances the quality of discussions regarding controversial topics, ultimately leading to better information sharing practices. As noted by Bavel and Pereira [5], partisanship can bias information processing, and fostering open-mindedness may help address this tendency towards bias. This suggests that promoting a culture of open dialogue can increase the accuracy of information dissemination within social groups, thus reducing the propagation of false claims.
Empirical Links Between Critical Thinking and Misinformation Belief
Empirical evidence supports the notion that training in cognitive reflection correlates with a reduction in belief in implausible claims and misinformation [6]. Individuals scoring higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) are often described as reflective thinkers who engage in deeper analytical processes, which typically leads to more skepticism toward misleading information [7]. The psychological mechanisms underlying this effect are aligned with dual-process theories of reasoning, where intuitive (System 1) and deliberative (System 2) thinking are contrasted.
Training that enhances individuals’ ability to engage in System 2 not only aids in detecting conflicts in the information they encounter but also fosters clearer discernment between true and false claims. Although direct studies connecting diverse cognitive contexts and critical thinking were not located, research indicates a positive relationship between enhanced critical thinking readiness and decreased misinformation sharing [8].
Research Questions and Hypotheses
Drawing on dual-process and meta-cognitive frameworks, we compare information science students (LIS) with non-LIS peers to understand how training in information evaluation shapes the role of conflict detection and open-mindedness in sharing intentions.
Research Problem
Information science students receive formal instruction in source evaluation, critical appraisal, and ethical information management—skills that likely enhance conflict detection and foster open-minded attitudes. By contrasting LIS and non-LIS groups, we can determine whether academic training amplifies the individual and joint effects of these traits on misinformation sharing behavior.
Research Questions
Does conflict detection predict lower intentions to share misinformation in both LIS and non-LIS students?
This question tests whether the skill of spotting inconsistencies functions similarly across groups with and without specialized training.Does the strength of the conflict detection–sharing intention relationship differ between LIS and non-LIS students?
Here we examine whether LIS training moderates the primary effect, potentially leading to steeper declines in sharing intentions among LIS students.Does open-mindedness moderate the effect of conflict detection on sharing intentions differently across LIS and non-LIS students?
We assess whether the joint protective effect of these traits varies by academic background.Do students high in both conflict detection and open-mindedness exhibit the lowest sharing intentions, and is this joint effect more pronounced among LIS students?
This explores potential synergy and threshold effects within each group.
Hypotheses
H1: Across both groups, higher conflict detection will associate with lower intentions to share misinformation.
H2: The negative relationship between conflict detection and sharing intentions will be stronger for LIS students than for non-LIS students.
H3: Open-mindedness will enhance the negative conflict detection–sharing intention link in both groups.
H4: The amplifying effect of open-mindedness on conflict detection’s deterrent effect will be greater among LIS students.
H5: LIS students scoring high on both traits will report the lowest sharing intentions overall, demonstrating a synergistic effect informed by their training.
Literature Review
Conflict Detection
Cognitive conflict detection refers to the process by which individuals recognize discrepancies between their existing beliefs or knowledge and new information or experiences that challenge those beliefs. This mechanism serves as a catalyst for critical thinking, as it prompts individuals to engage in deeper analysis and reconsideration of their views when confronted with conflicting data or perspectives. As articulated by Makhrus and Hidayatullah [9], the experience of cognitive conflict can enhance conceptual understanding by motivating learners to resolve inconsistencies in their knowledge frameworks. Similarly, Zetriuslita et al. [10] emphasize that problem-based learning combined with cognitive conflict strategies can cultivate critical thinking abilities, although not all aspects such as mathematical communication skills may improve.
The importance of cognitive conflict in education and reasoning is highlighted by findings linking performance in critical reasoning tasks to a reduced belief in false claims. Engaging in tasks that elicit cognitive conflict has been associated with improved critical thinking skills, which can diminish susceptibility to misinformation. Verawati and Hikmawati [11] found that employing cognitive conflict strategies within inquiry teaching effectively improved students’ critical thinking abilities, enhancing their capacity to analyze and assess the validity of the claims they encounter. This premise aligns with the understanding that when individuals confront conflicting information, they are more likely to engage in System 2 reasoning—characterized by deliberate, reflective thought—thus improving their ability to scrutinize information critically.
The interaction between cognitive conflict and critical thinking aligns well with dual-process models of reasoning, which propose two distinct but interconnected pathways of cognitive processing: System 1 and System 2. System 1 is characterized as fast, automatic, and reliant on heuristics, whereas System 2 encompasses slower, more analytical, and effortful thought processes [12, 13]. Conflict detection activates engagement of System 2, prompting individuals to critically examine the conflicting information they encounter. This activation allows them to weigh evidence and counter-argue against misinformation.
For instance, Guo et al. [14] found that prompting individuals to deliberate about framing effects in decision-making scenarios enhances the engagement of System 2, which can mitigate biases typical of quicker, heuristic-driven judgments associated with System 1 processing. Furthermore, the findings from Diederich and Trueblood [15] illustrate that the dynamic interaction between intuitive and deliberative processes is crucial for nuanced decision-making under uncertainty, reinforcing the necessity of engaging System 2 during conflicts to achieve reasoned conclusions.
Open-Mindedness
Open-mindedness is widely recognized as an epistemic virtue, characterized by an individual’s willingness to consider alternative viewpoints and ideas while remaining receptive to new evidence that may contradict their existing beliefs. This intellectual openness fosters critical thinking and enhances the pursuit of knowledge [16]. It serves not only as a cognitive disposition promoting effective reasoning but also aligns with the core principles of epistemic responsibility. According to Kwong [17], viewing open-mindedness through the lens of virtue epistemology portrays it as an essential trait for achieving accurate and justifiable beliefs.
Open-mindedness can be quantitatively assessed using various measurement scales, including the Active Open-minded Thinking (AOT) scale. The AOT scale specifically captures an individual’s propensity to engage actively with conflicting viewpoints and evaluate their validity, particularly in contexts where misinformation may proliferate [18]. This framework emphasizes the importance of not merely tolerating differing perspectives but actively engaging in the cognitive process of weighing evidence against personal beliefs.
Numerous studies demonstrate that open-mindedness significantly impacts an individual’s ability to process information and engage in perspective-taking. For instance, Groenendyk and Krupnikov [19] highlight how individuals exhibiting high levels of open-mindedness engage in unbiased reasoning that allows for greater acceptance of new— even conflicting—information compared to less open-minded individuals. Additionally, research by Khatri et al. [20] underscores the positive correlation between open-mindedness and the capacity to attend to irrelevant information and central arguments alike, thereby enriching the overall cognitive processing experience.
Further empirical findings suggest that open-minded individuals are better equipped to navigate cognitive biases and heuristics. Effective perspective-taking—often a function of cognitive empathy—can be enhanced through the cultivation of open-mindedness, aiding in the appreciation of and engagement with diverse social contexts. These individuals often demonstrate a greater willingness to confront their assumptions and biases, as revealed in studies that assess the dynamics of open-mindedness in learning environments [21, 22].
The promotion of open-mindedness holds particularly transformative potential in both educational and intercultural settings. In educational contexts, fostering open-mindedness among students can lead to enhanced cognitive flexibility and better academic outcomes. For example, Wang et al. [21] reveal that students who exhibit greater open-mindedness are more adept at developing intercultural communication skills, which are crucial for navigating diverse learning environments. By integrating open-mindedness into curricula, educators can foster critical engagement with material, encouraging students to explore multiple perspectives and reducing reliance on confirmation bias in information processing.
Furthermore, in intercultural dynamics, open-mindedness plays a pivotal role in enhancing cultural competence and understanding. Again, research by Wang et al. [21] has shown that engaging in short-term overseas study programs cultivates not only cultural awareness but also improves communication skills through the lens of open-mindedness. In organizational contexts, open-mindedness can mitigate cultural barriers and enhance innovation by creating environments that encourage collaboration and the free exchange of ideas [23, 24].
Online Misinformation Sharing
The sharing of unverified content online, particularly during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, is driven by various motivations that can be classified under cognitive biases and social influences. Understanding these motivations, along with the evidence of their real-world impacts, can provide insights into the broader implications of misinformation sharing.
Motivations for Sharing Unverified Content
Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and availability heuristic, significantly influence individuals’ decisions to share unverified information. Confirmation bias leads individuals to seek out or favor information that aligns with their preexisting beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. This inclination fosters a landscape where users are more likely to disseminate misleading information that supports their opinions [25].
Social Influences: The role of social dynamics in the spread of misinformation cannot be overstated. Individuals are motivated to share unverified content to align with group norms or gain social acceptance within their networks. Such sharing may be driven by the desire to appear informed or enhance one’s social status among peers [26]. Additionally, social media platforms often amplify content that elicits emotional reactions, which can lead users to share sensational or alarming information without verifying its accuracy [27].
Motivations for Fact-Checking: Interestingly, the desire to fact-check and engage in discussions about unverified information can lead individuals to share such content, albeit with altruistic intentions [28]. This paradox suggests that even those equipped with media literacy might inadvertently contribute to misinformation dissemination through a genuine interest in seeking clarity [29].
Role of Platform Design and Emotion-Driven Amplification
The design of social media platforms plays a crucial role in the spread of misinformation. Algorithms prioritize content that garners high engagement, often amplifying emotionally charged and sensationalist posts [34]. This amplification effect can lead to a feedback loop where misinformation spreads rapidly and is further reinforced by likes, shares, and comments across networks [35]. The design facilitates an environment where individuals encounter misinformation frequently, which can deepen their cognitive biases and emotional responses.
Moreover, platforms often lack effective moderation and fact-checking processes, allowing unchecked misinformation to proliferate. Emotional reactions elicited by sensational content not only increase the likelihood of sharing but also amplify misinformation’s reach, often outpacing corrective measures [25, 27]. As highlighted by various studies, improving media literacy and fostering critical thinking among users is essential to mitigate the harmful effects of misinformation in this digitally driven landscape [28, 36].
Formal Training in Information Evaluation
Formal training in information evaluation is essential in enhancing individuals’ ability to assess the credibility of information sources, navigate ethical dilemmas, and develop technical literacy, particularly in the context of rampant misinformation. Library and Information Science (LIS) curricula encompass several critical elements that aim to cultivate these skills among students.
LIS Curriculum Elements
Source Appraisal: Students are trained to evaluate sources based on credibility, relevance, and accuracy. This involves examining authors’ credentials, publication outlets, and the methodologies used in the information presented. Techniques like the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) are often utilized to guide this appraisal process [37].
Ethical Management: Ethical considerations play a crucial role in information dissemination and usage. Students learn about copyright laws, misinformation implications, and the responsibility of information professionals in promoting accurate content. Ethical management training fosters a conscious approach to how information is shared and managed in academic and public spheres.
Technical Literacy: With the rise of digital information platforms, technical literacy encompasses the skills needed to navigate and utilize various technologies effectively. This includes understanding search engines, social media platforms, and digital databases, which are integral to locating credible information [37]. Training in this area prepares users to engage critically with technological tools and avoid pitfalls associated with misinformation.
Research Gap
Despite extensive work linking conflict detection and open-mindedness separately to reductions in misinformation belief and sharing, research has yet to consider how formal training in information evaluation alters their joint impact. In particular, information science students undergo structured instruction in critical appraisal and ethical information management—experiences that likely strengthen conflict detection and foster open-minded attitudes beyond those found in non-LIS peers. Examining these traits concurrently across LIS and non-LIS groups will clarify whether formal training amplifies their combined predictive power for sharing intentions.