Sharing false political information is associated with heightened schizotypy

A recent study published in the open-access journal PLOS ONE explores how personality traits influence the sharing of false political information on social media. The research reveals that positive schizotypy — a set of traits including paranoia, suspicion, and disrupted thinking patterns — may play a significant role in both accidental and deliberate sharing of misinformation.

Misinformation and disinformation are pervasive online and can result in severe consequences such as political unrest, diminished trust in genuine news, and the proliferation of harmful conspiracy theories. By identifying the specific personality traits and motivations that predispose certain individuals to spread false information, the researchers aimed to deepen the understanding of this behavior and contribute to the development of more effective interventions to curb the spread of misinformation.

Previous studies had suggested that individual differences, such as personality traits and cognitive styles, might influence the sharing of false information, but there was no consensus on which traits were most important. Furthermore, motivations for sharing false information were underexplored. By examining both personality traits (like positive schizotypy) and various motivations, the researchers sought to create a comprehensive framework that could explain why certain individuals are more likely to share false information.

To this end, they conducted a series of four separate studies.

In the first study, the researchers conducted a preregistered cross-sectional online survey to examine the extent to which various individual differences predict the sharing of false information, both accidentally and deliberately. Data collection was carried out using the Qualtrics platform, with participants recruited from the Prolific participant panel. The initial sample consisted of 670 individuals, but after excluding incomplete responses and inauthentic data, the final sample included 614 participants, predominantly women, with an average age of 30.

Participants completed several background measures, including age, gender, education, country of residency, occupational status, and political ideology. Social media usage was assessed through frequency of use, trust in political information, and the extent of political information sharing. The primary variables of interest were the accidental and deliberate sharing of false information, assessed through two specific questions about whether participants had shared political news stories they later found to be false or knew were false at the time of sharing.

The results indicated that cognitive perceptual schizotypy was significantly associated with accidental sharing of false information. Higher levels of schizotypy were linked to a greater likelihood of reporting having shared false information inadvertently. Additionally, a general tendency to share political information online was associated with accidental sharing. However, need for chaos did not predict deliberate sharing of false information, contradicting initial hypotheses.

Building on the findings of Study 1, the second study aimed to include motivational factors in predicting the sharing of false information. This study also used a cross-sectional online survey, again with participants recruited from Prolific. The final sample included 562 U.S. residents with an equal number of participants identifying as Democrat and Republican.

Participants completed similar background and social media measures as in Study 1. Additionally, they answered questions about their motivations for sharing political information, using an 18-item questionnaire that covered six motivational clusters: Prosocial Activism, Attack or Manipulation of Others, Entertainment, Awareness, Political Self-expression, and Fighting False Information.

Participants were asked about their accidental and deliberate sharing of false information, similar to Study 1. Those who reported sharing false information were further queried on their motivations for sharing the specific false story.

The findings revealed that motivations significantly influenced the sharing of false information. The motivation to attack or manipulate others was associated with deliberate sharing of false information. The desire to entertain was linked to accidental sharing, indicating that some people may share false stories because they find them amusing, only to later discover their inaccuracy. The motivation to raise awareness was also significant, suggesting that individuals who believe in spreading information to counter media biases or alert others about perceived threats were more likely to share false information.

Study 3 shifted from self-reports of past behavior to a scenario-based methodology to assess participants’ likelihood of sharing false information. This study again used a cross-sectional online survey, targeting a specific sample of Prolific users who voted for Donald Trump in the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The final sample included 627 participants.

Participants first completed demographic and social media measures, followed by a task where they rated their likelihood of sharing ten political stories (five true and five false). These stories were right-leaning headlines previously rated for partisanship. Participants indicated their willingness to share each story and their perception of its truthfulness.

The results showed that positive schizotypy was associated with a higher likelihood of sharing false stories. This association was modest but significant. Motivations such as raising awareness and sharing for entertainment purposes were also significant predictors of the likelihood of sharing false stories. However, when controlling for other variables, the attack or manipulation motive did not significantly predict sharing behavior, suggesting that its influence might be mediated by other factors.

The fourth study aimed to observe real-world behavior by analyzing participants’ Twitter activity. This two-stage study began with a pre-selection phase involving 2,999 participants who reported sharing political material on social media and having an active, publicly visible Twitter account. Of these, 134 participants completed the follow-up study, with 113 providing usable data.

Participants completed the same background and social media measures as in previous studies, including self-reports of sharing false information. Motivations for sharing political information were assessed using the 18-item questionnaire from earlier studies. Cognitive Perceptual Schizotypy was again measured with the SPQ-BRU.

The researchers then analyzed the participants’ 100 most recent retweets and quote-retweets on Twitter, coding for the presence of false political information based on a database of fact-checked content. The main variable of interest was the number of false posts retweeted without debunking information.

The findings indicated that a minority of participants had shared false stories. Those who did tended to score higher on the magical thinking subscale of schizotypy, suggesting a link between this trait and real-life sharing of false information. Additionally, motivations such as raising awareness and prosocial activism were associated with actual sharing behavior. However, the attack or manipulation motive did not significantly predict real-life sharing, aligning with the findings from Study 3.

“In summary, our four studies provide evidence that positive schizotypy is associated with measures of sharing false political information,” the researchers wrote. “It emerges as more important than any of the personality, cognitive style, or other individual differences we considered. They also provide evidence for the importance of motivation. While a range of motivations for sharing political information online were associated with sharing false information, two appeared particularly important: a desire to share political stories to attack or manipulate others, and to share political stories in order to raise awareness.”

“While individuals reported different motivations for sharing specific false stories, these two factors appeared to influence both deliberate and accidental sharing of false stories. However, it is possible that the Attack motive is associated more with views about whether it is acceptable to share false information, or increased reporting of doing so, rather than the behavior itself. Understanding the role of motivation in more detail, as well as the effects of positive schizotypy, are likely to be productive themes for future misinformation research.”

The study, “Individual differences in sharing false political information on social media: Deliberate and accidental sharing, motivations and positive schizotypy,” was authored by Tom Buchanan, Rotem Perach, Deborah Husbands, Amber F. Tout, Ekaterina Kostyuk, James Kempley, and Laura Joyner.