Introduction
The question of whether individuals susceptible to fake news are inherently ‘stupid’ is a complex and multi-faceted issue that warrants careful psychological analysis. Fake news, defined as fabricated or misleading information presented as factual, has become a pervasive concern in the digital age, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and even personal health choices. This essay explores the psychological underpinnings of susceptibility to fake news, challenging the simplistic notion that such vulnerability equates to a lack of intelligence. Instead, it argues that cognitive biases, emotional influences, and socio-cultural factors often play a more significant role than intellectual capacity. Drawing on academic literature and relevant course content from undergraduate psychology studies, this essay will critically examine the mechanisms behind belief in fake news and propose that susceptibility is not a marker of stupidity but rather a reflection of broader human cognitive tendencies. The discussion will be structured around three key areas: cognitive biases, the role of emotions and identity, and the impact of digital environments.
Cognitive Biases and Susceptibility to Fake News
One of the primary reasons individuals fall prey to fake news is the influence of cognitive biases, which are systematic errors in thinking that affect decision-making. Confirmation bias, for instance, is a well-documented phenomenon in psychology where individuals favour information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs while dismissing contradictory evidence (Nickerson, 1998). In the context of fake news, this means that people are more likely to accept false information if it reinforces their worldview. For example, during discussions in a recent university seminar on cognitive psychology, we explored how confirmation bias can lead individuals to share misleading articles about political events simply because they align with their ideological stance, regardless of the content’s veracity.
Moreover, the concept of the ‘illusory truth effect’—where repeated exposure to a statement increases its perceived truthfulness—further complicates susceptibility. Research by Fazio et al. (2015) demonstrates that even intelligent individuals can be swayed by repeated false claims, as familiarity breeds acceptance. This suggests that susceptibility to fake news is less about a lack of intelligence and more about universal cognitive shortcuts that all humans employ. Therefore, labelling such individuals as ‘stupid’ oversimplifies a deeply ingrained psychological process. Indeed, intelligence, as measured by IQ or academic achievement, does not necessarily protect against these biases, as critical thinking skills and media literacy are often separate from raw cognitive ability.
Emotional Influences and Social Identity
Beyond cognitive biases, emotions and social identity significantly contribute to belief in fake news. Emotional arousal, particularly feelings of fear or anger, can impair rational judgement and make individuals more susceptible to misinformation. A study by Weeks (2015) highlights how emotionally charged fake news stories, such as those related to health scares or political scandals, are more likely to be believed and shared because they evoke strong reactions that override critical evaluation. During a personal reading of this study as part of a module on social psychology, I noted how the emotional impact of fake news often aligns with an individual’s social identity, further cementing belief in false narratives. For instance, a fabricated story about an outgroup threat may resonate with individuals who strongly identify with a particular social or political group, prompting them to accept it without scrutiny.
This intersection of emotion and identity underscores why susceptibility is not synonymous with stupidity. Rather, it reflects a natural human tendency to seek belonging and protect one’s group from perceived threats. As argued by Tajfel and Turner (1979) in their Social Identity Theory, individuals derive self-esteem from group membership, which can lead to biased processing of information that supports their group’s narrative. Consequently, dismissing those who believe fake news as intellectually deficient ignores the powerful role of emotional and social drivers in shaping belief systems. Such a perspective also fails to account for the situational factors that may amplify emotional responses, such as stress or uncertainty during crises like pandemics or elections.
Digital Environment and Information Overload
The digital environment in which fake news proliferates further complicates the narrative around intelligence and susceptibility. The internet, particularly social media platforms, creates an ecosystem of information overload where distinguishing fact from fiction becomes increasingly challenging. Algorithms designed to prioritise engagement often promote sensationalist or misleading content, as noted by Vosoughi et al. (2018), whose research shows that false information spreads faster than truth on platforms like Twitter due to its novelty and emotional appeal. In a recent lecture on media psychology, we discussed how even tech-savvy individuals can struggle to navigate this landscape, as the sheer volume of information overwhelms critical evaluation processes.
Furthermore, the concept of digital literacy—or the lack thereof—plays a crucial role. While some might assume that susceptibility to fake news indicates low intelligence, it is arguably more tied to unfamiliarity with online verification tools and critical media consumption practices. For example, older adults, who may not have grown up with digital technology, often show higher susceptibility not because of innate cognitive deficits but due to limited exposure to digital literacy education (Guess et al., 2019). This highlights a systemic issue rather than an individual failing, suggesting that educational interventions, rather than derogatory labels, are a more constructive response to the problem of fake news.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the assumption that individuals susceptible to fake news are ‘stupid’ is an oversimplification that fails to account for the complex psychological and environmental factors at play. Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and the illusory truth effect demonstrate that susceptibility is a universal human trait, not a marker of intellectual deficiency. Emotional influences and social identity further complicate the issue, as individuals often prioritise group loyalty and emotional resonance over factual accuracy. Additionally, the digital environment, with its information overload and algorithm-driven content, creates systemic challenges that even highly intelligent individuals struggle to navigate. Rather than stigmatising those who believe fake news, a more productive approach would involve fostering critical thinking and digital literacy through education. This perspective not only challenges harmful stereotypes but also opens up avenues for addressing the root causes of misinformation. Ultimately, understanding susceptibility to fake news as a multifaceted psychological phenomenon offers a more nuanced and compassionate framework for tackling one of the defining issues of our time.
References
- Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015) Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993-1002.
- Guess, A., Nagler, J., & Tucker, J. (2019) Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), eaau4586.
- Nickerson, R. S. (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175-220.
- Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
- Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151.
- Weeks, B. E. (2015) Emotions, partisanship, and misperceptions: How anger and anxiety moderate the effect of partisan bias on susceptibility to political misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719.
