Are Republicans And Democrats Equally Adept At Spotting Misinformation?

Liberals vs. conservatives: who's better at discerning political fact from fiction? New research reveals the answer.

By Mark Travers, Ph.D. | September 18, 2024

As the 2024 elections approach, our social media feeds are flooded with political content from all sides. Whether you lean left or right, you're likely to encounter an overwhelming mix of news, opinions and, unfortunately, misinformation. But this raises an important question: Are liberals and conservatives equally capable of distinguishing political facts from fiction?

Recent research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology sought to answer this question—by measuring Republicans' and Democrats' levels of "metacognitive inefficiency."

What Is Metacognitive Inefficiency?

Metacognitive skills are essentially our ability to "think about thinking." According to a 2021 study in Psychological Review, these skills help us use our confidence levels to judge the accuracy of our own decisions, beliefs and thoughts. In simpler terms, metacognition is the mental process that helps us evaluate how likely we are to be correct.

However, not everyone's metacognitive skills are perfect. Sometimes, we might feel overly confident or lack confidence in our thoughts and decisions—even when our actual accuracy doesn't match that self-assurance. This mismatch is known as "metacognitive bias," where our confidence either overshoots or undershoots the reality.

On the other hand, even when we're confident, that confidence might not accurately reflect how correct we are. This is called "metacognitive sensitivity"—when, despite sheer confidence, we still make poor decisions, lapses in judgment or believe things that are incorrect. It's about whether our confidence truly indicates whether we're making good decisions or falling into error.

Together, metacognitive bias and sensitivity make up what psychologists refer to as "metacognitive inefficiency." And this ineffective "thinking about thinking" can crop up more often than you'd think in day to day life.

Say, for instance, you're debating with a friend. You feel certain that your facts are correct, but you don't take the time to double-check your sources. If your confidence doesn't match the accuracy of your information, you're exhibiting metacognitive inefficiency. Conversely, if you're unsure but decide to fact-check and find out you were right all along, your metacognition is working effectively. This ability—or lack thereof—can significantly impact how well we navigate our decisions, our education and the flood of information that exists within the world, particularly in the political realm.

Liberals' Versus Conservatives' Metacognitive Abilities

Metacognitive abilities play a crucial role in our capacity to distinguish factual information from misinformation—especially in political contexts. It involves not just self-awareness about what we know, but also the ability to confidently assess whether the information aligns with reality. Given the serious threat that political misinformation poses to democracies around the world, and with elections on the horizon, it's a critical area of study that, surprisingly, has received limited attention from researchers—until now.

This gap in research prompted a team of psychologists to investigate the metacognitive abilities of liberals and conservatives. In the 2024 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, researchers conducted a six-month longitudinal study—surveying over 1,000 U.S. citizens from across the political spectrum. Participants were asked to evaluate a range of widely circulated political information (both factual and misleading) to gauge their ability to discern truth from falsehood.

The study found that individuals from both the left and right were generally aware of their ability to distinguish accurate information from misinformation. However, a significant difference emerged: Republicans and conservatives demonstrated considerably lower metacognitive insight—especially when the information in question challenged their ideological beliefs—compared to Democrats and liberals.

This finding suggests that, on average, conservatives' confidence in their judgments was less likely to reflect the actual correctness of their truth assessments when the information conflicted with their political views. In contrast, liberals were somewhat better at aligning their confidence with accuracy—even when faced with information that challenged their own ideologies. This disparity in metacognitive efficiency could play a crucial role in how different political groups navigate the deluge of information leading up to the 2024 elections.

The Bottom Line

This disparity in metacognitive efficiency could have significant implications for how different political groups interact with and spread information in the lead-up to the elections—and likely already has. If conservatives are more likely to be overconfident in their beliefs, even when those beliefs are incorrect, they may be more susceptible to believing and sharing misinformation. This could contribute to a more polarized and misinformed electorate; this, in turn, could influence voting behavior and public opinion in ways that do not necessarily reflect the actual facts.

And while liberals may be better at adjusting their confidence to match the accuracy of their beliefs, this does not make them immune to misinformation. The complexity and sheer volume of information available—combined with the emotionally charged nature of political content—can still lead to errors in judgment across the political spectrum. However, their relatively higher metacognitive efficiency might offer some resilience against misinformation, which could make them more critical consumers of political content.

However, in a broader context, these findings epitomize the importance of metacognitive skills in a healthy democracy. The ability to critically evaluate information—most especially in our current era of widespread misinformation—is essential for informed decision-making. If certain groups are more prone to metacognitive inefficiency, it could lead to an uneven distribution of misinformation—where some segments of the population are more misinformed than others. This can create echo chambers and further entrench ideological divides—both of which make it considerably harder for populations to reach consensus on critical issues.

Has political misinformation informed any of your beliefs? Take this test, and receive science-backed answers from a psychologist: Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale

A similar version of this article can also be found on Forbes.com, here.