You will be provided with a research report. The body of the report will contain some citations to references.

Citations in the main text may appear in the following forms:
1. A segment of text + space + number, for example: "Li Qiang constructed a socioeconomic status index (SES) based on income, education, and occupation, dividing society into 7 levels 15"
2. A segment of text + [number], for example: "Li Qiang constructed a socioeconomic status index (SES) based on income, education, and occupation, dividing society into 7 levels[15]"
3. A segment of text + [number†(some line numbers, etc.)], for example: "Li Qiang constructed a socioeconomic status index (SES) based on income, education, and occupation, dividing society into 7 levels[15†L10][5L23][7†summary]"
4. [Citation Source](Citation Link), for example: "According to [ChinaFile: A Guide to Social Class in Modern China](https://www.chinafile.com/reporting-opinion/media/guide-social-class-modern-china)'s classification, Chinese society can be divided into nine strata"

Please identify **all** instances where references are cited in the main text, and extract (fact, ref_idx, url) triplets. When extracting, pay attention to the following:
1. Since these facts will need to be verified later, you may need to look for some context before and after the citation to ensure that the fact is complete and understandable, rather than just a simple phrase or short expression.
2. If a fact cites multiple references, then it should correspond to two triplets: (fact, ref_idx_1, url_1) and (fact, ref_idx_2, url_2).
3. For the third form of citation (i.e., where the citation source and link appear directly in the text), the ref_idx should be uniformly set to 0.
4. If the main text does not specify the exact location of the citation (for example, only the reference list is listed at the end of the article, without specifying the citation point in the text), please return an empty list.

You should return a JSON list format, where each item in the list is a triplet, for example:
[
    {
        "fact": "Text segment from the original document. Note that Chinese quotation marks should use full-width marks. And add a single backslash before the English quotation mark to make it a readable for python json module.",
        "ref_idx": "The index of the cited reference in the reference list for this text segment.",
        "url": "The URL of the cited reference for this text segment (extracted from the reference list at the end of the research report or from the parentheses at the citation point)."
    }
]

Here is the main text of the research report:
# The Epistemic Architecture of Misinformation Acceptance: The Role of Need for Cognitive Closure

## Conceptual Foundations and Dimensional Structure of Cognitive Closure

The psychological construct of the Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC), formulated within Arie Kruglanski’s theory of lay epistemics, describes an individual’s desire for a definitive answer to a question and a pronounced aversion toward ambiguity, uncertainty, and confusion [1]. Unlike general mental ability or cognitive sophistication, NFCC operates as a motivated epistemic orientation that governs how individuals seek, encode, evaluate, and maintain information [3]. The intensity of this epistemic motive reflects an economic balancing of cognitive trade-offs, determined by the perceived psychological costs of remaining in an open, undecided state compared to the subjective benefits of possessing stable, unshakeable knowledge [3].

Psychometrically established by Webster and Kruglanski and subsequently refined by Roets and Van Hiel to decouple motivational drive from perceived cognitive capacity, NFCC is organized across five distinct structural facets [1].

The preference for order captures an individual’s dispositional inclination toward neatness, systemization, and structured environments, reflecting a deep discomfort with chaotic, unorganized data [1].

The preference for predictability denotes the craving for stable, immutable knowledge across temporal and situational contexts, enabling consistent behavioral and cognitive expectations [1].

Intolerance of ambiguity represents the acute psychological distress, tension, and cognitive dissonance experienced when confronted with equivocal, grey, or conflicting information [1].

Closed-mindedness reflects the active defensive resistance to having one’s acquired convictions challenged, updated, or destabilized by alternative perspectives or emergent counter-evidence [1].

Finally, decisiveness characterizes the urgency to finalize deliberations and terminate the decision-making process as expeditiously as possible [1].

These dimensional facets operate dynamically through two foundational phases: the urgency tendency and the permanence tendency [3]. The urgency tendency describes the pressing inclination to attain closure without delay, propelling the cognitive system to seize on the first accessible piece of information that resolves an open question [3]. The permanence tendency describes the subsequent drive to safeguard and freeze on that acquired judgment indefinitely, shielding cognitive closure against future disruption and preventing the distressing reopening of the issue [3].

## Cognitive Processing Mechanisms: The Seizing and Freezing Dynamic

The cognitive pathway linking high NFCC to misinformation vulnerability operates fundamentally through the seizing and freezing sequence [3]. When an unexpected, ambiguous, or threatening event occurs, individuals with an elevated need for closure experience an aversive affective state characterized by uncertainty distress [2]. To alleviate this psychological tension, the cognitive architecture prioritizes cognitive speed and finality over epistemic accuracy and systematic scrutiny [3].

During the initial seizing phase, high NFCC individuals disproportionately depend on heuristic, superficial, and peripheral cues rather than engaging in effortful, systematic information elaboration [9]. Viewed through the framework of dual-process theories of cognition, high closure motives depress analytic Type 2 deliberation and favor rapid Type 1 intuitive heuristics [9]. Because deceptive news items, online rumors, and fabricated reports are frequently engineered to provide clear-cut causal attributions, vivid narratives, and emotive fluency, they offer immediate epistemic resolution [13]. The urgency drive compels the cognitive apparatus to seize upon these readily accessible, fluently processed narratives, preempting the patient search for alternative, more reliable explanations [3].

Once an explanation is seized and internalized into an individual’s cognitive representation, the permanence phase takes precedence [2]. At this juncture, the individual freezes upon the newly adopted belief to preserve the acquired equilibrium [3]. To reopen the cognitive schema would entail plunging back into ambiguity, a state that high NFCC individuals actively avoid [3].

Consequently, freezing manifests as severe cognitive rigidity, characterized by a heavy reliance on confirmation heuristics, selective assimilation of congruent data, hyper-critical scrutiny directed toward counter-attitudinal evidence, and deliberate discounting of official rebuttals [9]. While low NFCC allows individuals to maintain open-ended hypotheses, tolerate interim uncertainty, and exhibit epistemic curiosity, high NFCC precipitates premature cognitive closure, sealing memory against corrective updating and cementing invalid assertions into long-term structures [3].

## Empirical Findings: Misinformation Acceptance, Rumor Diffusion, and Truth Discernment

Empirical research on the direct statistical association between NFCC and misinformation acceptance challenges the simplistic notion that high closure directly triggers an indiscriminate appetite for falsehoods [14]. Rather, empirical evidence reveals that NFCC functions as a content-neutral epistemic accelerator, predisposing individuals to adopt whatever salient information satisfies the imperative for certainty [14].

In news discernment paradigms that utilize signal detection frameworks to disentangle discrimination ability (the cognitive capacity to separate true headlines from fabricated headlines) from response bias (the broad threshold tendency to classify headlines as true or false), NFCC typically demonstrates weak or statistically non-significant direct effects on discrimination when rigorous ideological and competence controls are incorporated [19]. Large-scale meta-analyses and empirical studies examining the acceptance of online political fake news demonstrate that while analytic thinking consistently predicts superior discrimination ability, and identity metrics predict ideological response biases, dispositional NFCC frequently fails to achieve significant direct explanatory power on generic veracity judgments [19]. For example, comprehensive evaluations of political disinformation in polarized post-communist media environments demonstrate that once conspiracy mentality and motivated political reasoning are accounted for, general need for closure does not independently explain belief variance across fake and authentic news items [19].

Similarly, investigations into the illusory truth effect—the robust cognitive phenomenon whereby repeated statements are judged as significantly more truthful due to enhanced processing fluency—demonstrate that this metacognitive shortcut is strikingly pervasive across diverse epistemic profiles [26]. Multi-study psychometric evaluations indicate that individual differences in NFCC, cognitive style, and cognitive ability fail to moderate the magnitude of the repetition-induced truth effect [26]. Fluency-driven truth inferences operate so fundamentally at the level of basic human memory that the urgency and permanence tendencies associated with NFCC neither enhance nor buffer against the illusory truth baseline [10].

The empirical influence of NFCC crystallizes primarily under informational conditions characterized by narrative vacuums, epistemic threat, and situational ambiguity [14]. When reliable explanations are absent, ambiguous, or delayed, individuals with elevated NFCC display an acute vulnerability to accepting conspiratorial explanations, unverified rumors, and fabricated narratives [14]. Under these conditions, speculative claims provide immediate, structured explanations for otherwise chaotic events [6].

| Empirical Domain | Research Methodology and Sample Characteristics | Core Findings Regarding Need for Cognitive Closure | Key Reference Citations |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Conspiracy Narrative Adoption in Crises** | Representative longitudinal panel survey (\(N = 2,883\)) in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic | Small direct positive association between NFCC and endorsement of conspiracy narratives (\(r = 0.12\)); institutional trust exerted a significantly more powerful explanatory influence. | Jedinger & Masch (2025) [2] |
| **Experimental Manipulation of Narrative Ambiguity** | Controlled laboratory experiments testing explanations for novel crisis events | NFCC positively predicted conspiratorial belief adoption specifically when official accounts were absent and conspiracy claims were salient. When clear official accounts were introduced, the link reversed. | Marchlewska, Cichocka, & Kossowska (2018) [14] |
| **Robustness of the Illusory Truth Effect** | 7 experimental studies (\(N = 2,196\)) assessing trivia and partisan news headlines | Illusory truth effect remained entirely robust across variations in cognitive traits; dispositional NFCC showed no significant moderation of repetition-induced belief. | De Keersmaecker et al. (2020) [26] |
| **Offsetting Educational Defenses** | Multi-study psychometric investigations (\(N = 354\) and \(N = 306\)) examining epistemic beliefs | Elevated NFCC, operating alongside narcissistic grandiosity, systematically offset the typical protective benefits of formal education on misinformation and conspiracy susceptibility. | Epistemic Reasoning Studies (2024) [29] |
| **Receptivity to Platform Warning Labels** | Multi-platform experimental testing of user interactions with warning flags | High NFCC positively predicted favorable attitudes toward unambiguous warning flags, as explicit labels immediately reduce interpretive ambiguity. | Kaufman et al. / Social Media Tagging (2022) [30] |

These structured empirical findings underscore that NFCC does not induce an inherent preference for untruths, but rather an urgent demand for epistemic completeness [14]. Deceptive claims and false rumors are accepted because they emerge rapidly, offer neat causal attributions, and effectively eliminate the psychological burden of open-ended ambiguity [6].

## Belief Updating, Knowledge Revision, and the Continued Influence Effect

The operational dynamics of NFCC become most visible in knowledge revision paradigms, particularly in studies examining the Continued Influence Effect (CIE) [13]. The continued influence effect describes the well-documented cognitive failure wherein retracted misinformation continues to systematically infect inferential reasoning, post-event explanations, and decision-making, even when individuals explicitly recall and acknowledge the validity of the correction [13].

The dominant psychological explanation for this persistence is the Mental Model Theory [17]. When individuals read or hear an account of an unfolding event, they build an integrated, internally coherent mental model of that event to explain why and how it occurred [17]. If a central explanatory component of that mental model is subsequent misinformation—such as attributing the cause of a catastrophic warehouse fire to volatile toxic materials or arson—the individual incorporates that causal assertion into their model [13]. When a subsequent correction is presented that merely negates the assertion (stating that no toxic materials or arson were involved), the retraction excises the causal node without providing a replacement [13]. This leaves a structurally unstable explanatory vacuum in the individual's mental representation [13].

For an individual characterized by a high need for cognitive closure, an incomplete, fractured, or ambiguous mental model is cognitively intolerable [3]. The presence of an explanatory gap re-activates the urgency tendency, but because the retraction offers no alternative causal mechanism, the permanence tendency enforces reliance on the discredited initial misinformation [3]. High NFCC individuals prefer an invalid or faulty explanation over no explanation at all, choosing to rely on discredited misinformation during later inferential reasoning rather than tolerate an unresolved void in their situational comprehension [5]. Conversely, individuals low in NFCC demonstrate greater comfort with open-ended epistemic states, remaining capable of sustaining an incomplete model while suspending final judgment until verified facts emerge [3].

Consequently, research demonstrates that the continued influence effect can be significantly attenuated or eliminated only when a correction delivers an explicit, plausible alternative causal narrative that seamlessly substitutes for the discredited assertion [17]. When an alternative account is provided (for example, explaining that the fire was sparked by an electrical short circuit), it resolves the structural vacuum in the mental model, providing high NFCC individuals with a definitive factual anchor upon which they can securely freeze [17]. Without this alternative, conventional debiasing efforts that rely strictly on simple retractions or factual fact-checks trigger defensive resistance among high NFCC individuals, who cling to the original narrative to protect their cognitive closure [13].

A related facet of this dynamic involves receptivity to warning systems and prebunking frameworks on social media platforms [30]. While individuals high in NFCC actively resist nuanced retractions that create ambiguity, they show elevated approval and adherence toward definitive, authoritative warning tags [30]. Because unambiguous warning tags deliver immediate clarity regarding what should be accepted or rejected, they satisfy the urgency drive by providing a categorical cognitive verdict, obviating the need for cognitively demanding source triangulation or prolonged deliberation [9].

## Moderating Factors: Ideology, Epistemic Trust, and Situational Demands

The relationship between NFCC and misinformation acceptance is non-linear and moderated by sociopolitical identities, institutional trust configurations, reflective thinking, and ambient environmental pressures [2]. High closure functions as an epistemic engine, but external moderating forces determine which narratives that engine adopts and preserves [2].

### Political Ideology and Partisan Motivated Reasoning

In politically charged environments, the ideological congruency of a news narrative heavily moderates the seizing and freezing process [19]. Grounded in models of identity-based and motivated social cognition, individuals utilize political group norms to navigate societal complexity [16]. When individuals high in NFCC encounter ideologically congenial misinformation, the urgency tendency facilitates immediate endorsement, as congenial falsehoods produce immediate cognitive fluency and avoid cognitive dissonance [3].

Once accepted, the permanence tendency drives vigorous defensive processing [3]. High NFCC individuals display heightened motivated reflection and disconfirmation bias when exposed to factual corrections that threaten their partisan beliefs, aggressively counterarguing the debiasing information to maintain the closure afforded by their ideological convictions [9]. When misinformation aligns with identity, high NFCC amplifies worldview defense mechanisms, rendering political misinformation deeply resistant to correction [16].

### Political and Institutional Trust

Institutional and scientific trust serves as the foundational switch governing the direction of the closure-seeking process [2]. In large-scale empirical studies examining conspiracy theories and misinformation during national health crises, political and institutional trust routinely emerges as a dominant predictor, with effect sizes that far surpass dispositional NFCC [2].

When individuals high in NFCC possess strong trust in medical, scientific, and governmental authorities, their need for certainty is successfully fulfilled through official briefings, scientific consensus, and verified public institutional channels [2]. Under these conditions, the high NFCC profile acts as an adherence mechanism, leading individuals to reject fringe theories and align with authoritative directives [2].

However, when institutional trust is fractured, an acute epistemic vacuum appears [28]. In the absence of credible institutional answers, the urgent demand for cognitive closure drives distrustful individuals to seize upon anti-establishment conspiracy narratives and decentralized online misinformation to reconstruct a sense of order and predictability [2].

### Cognitive Reflection and the Neutralization of Educational Buffers

Although formal education and analytic thinking skills are traditionally celebrated as standard protective buffers against misinformation gullibility, psychological needs for certainty can completely undermine these competencies [12]. Recent empirical studies exploring epistemic-social motivated reasoning reveal that elevated levels of NFCC—particularly when accompanied by narcissistic grandiosity and needs for personal uniqueness—completely offset the typical protective benefits of education [29].

At just one standard deviation above the mean in these traits, the statistical benefits of formal education on truth discernment disappear [29]. Under elevated NFCC, an individual's intellectual and analytic faculties are co-opted to rationalize desired conclusions, concoct post-hoc justifications for seized narratives, and construct sophisticated defenses against counter-evidence [29]. Rather than facilitating open-minded veracity testing, reasoning is weaponized to protect cognitive closure [17].

### Situational Stressors, Ambient Threat, and Cognitive Depletion

NFCC is both an enduring dispositional trait and a fluctuating psychological state induced by situational stressors [3]. Environmental factors such as acute time constraints, task fatigue, excessive environmental noise, information overload, and macro-level crises (including geopolitical conflict, natural disasters, and viral outbreaks) substantially elevate state NFCC across populations [3].

Under severe cognitive load and acute ambient threat, individuals suffer cognitive depletion, losing the executive resources required for systematic elaboration and counter-arguing [9]. In this depleted condition, the urgency tendency escalates sharply, forcing individuals to seize on intuitive heuristics, sensationalist claims, and simplistic narratives to attain psychological security [3]. The high-velocity, emotionally charged nature of contemporary digital media platforms constantly induces state closure demands, creating an optimal operational environment for the rapid diffusion and uncritical acceptance of misinformation [15].

## Scientific Synthesis and Strategic Debiasing Implications

The Need for Cognitive Closure occupies a foundational, architectonic role in shaping how individuals interact with the contemporary information ecosystem [1]. NFCC does not reflect a selective attraction to falsity or irrationality; rather, it manifests as a fundamental intolerance of ambiguity and open-ended processing [3]. Deceptive information, pseudo-scientific claims, and populist conspiracy theories thrive because they offer immediate, neatly wrapped causal narratives at the exact moments when factual explanations are nuanced, complex, or delayed [6]. Once integrated into an individual's cognitive architecture, the permanence tendency locks the belief into place, driving the Continued Influence Effect whenever post-hoc retractions leave causal voids in an individual's mental model [3].

Designing effective counter-misinformation interventions requires tailoring communication strategies directly to this closure-seeking architecture [17]. Communication specialists and fact-checkers must eliminate the practice of issuing simple, negative retractions [13]. Negating a falsehood without providing an alternative creates an explanatory vacuum that high NFCC individuals instinctively fill with the initial misinformation [17]. Every debiasing communication must offer an immediate, plausible, and complete alternative causal narrative that resolves how and why the event unfolded, satisfying the individual's need for structural coherence and enabling them to freeze securely upon verified facts [17].

Digital communication platforms and public institutions must also recognize the temporal sensitivity of the closure mechanism [14]. In emerging crises, public authorities cannot leave information vacuums open while waiting for complete clarity, as these epistemic voids accelerate the uncritical seizing of speculative rumors [14]. Delivering rapid, transparent, and structured explanations preempts misinformation ecosystems from satisfying the public's urgency drive [2].

Finally, platform warning mechanisms should leverage high NFCC individuals' preference for structure by presenting clear, definitive, and authoritative guidance that resolves ambiguity without inducing analytical fatigue [30]. Countering misinformation in an information-dense landscape requires transforming knowledge revision from an exercise in creating destabilizing uncertainty into a process of providing clear, structurally coherent, and definitive epistemic resolution [2].

## References

[1] Need For Closure Scale (NFCS) - Arie Kruglanski — https://www.kruglanskiarie.com/need-for-closure
[2] (PDF) Need for cognitive closure, political trust, and belief in — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388272109_Need_for_cognitive_closure_political_trust_and_belief_in_conspiracy_theories_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic
[3] Cognitive and Social Consequences of the Need for Cognitive Closure — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232996908_Cognitive_and_Social_Consequences_of_the_Need_for_Cognitive_Closure
[4] Clarifying the Dimensional Structure of the Need for Closure Scale — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6543758_Separating_Ability_From_Need_Clarifying_the_Dimensional_Structure_of_the_Need_for_Closure_Scale
[5] Predicting Misinformation Beliefs Across Four Countries: The Role of — https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/view/13385/13385.html
[6] The Relationship between the Need for Closure and Coronavirus Fear — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690611/
[7] Need for Closure Scale Overview | PDF | Neuroscience - Scribd — https://www.scribd.com/document/922995932/The-Need-for-Closure-Scale-NFCS-Long
[8] Need for Closure Scale | Free Online Assessment - Coached — https://coached.com/tools/need-for-closure-scale
[9] Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure - PMC — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3694217/
[10] Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across ... - Biblio — https://backoffice.biblio.ugent.be/download/8653558/8653561
[11] (PDF) Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332109523_Who_falls_for_fake_news_The_roles_of_bullshit_receptivity_overclaiming_familiarity_and_analytic_thinking
[12] Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of — https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2409329121
[13] The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance — https://scispace.com/pdf/the-psychological-drivers-of-misinformation-belief-and-its-2x2d8re6.pdf
[14] Need for cognitive closure and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318186726_Addicted_to_answers_Need_for_cognitive_closure_and_the_endorsement_of_conspiracy_beliefs_Need_for_cognitive_closure_and_conspiracy_beliefs
[15] Why Wrong Information Is Worse Than No Information — https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/common-sense-science/202506/why-wrong-information-is-worse-than-no-information
[16] Ecker, UKH, Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio — https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/298563464/Ecker_v4_TSshorten_UE_clean.pdf
[17] Misinformation and Its Correction (Chapter 8) - Social Media and — https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/social-media-and-democracy/misinformation-and-its-correction/61FA7FD743784A723BA234533012E810
[18] On the Disposition to Think Analytically: Four Distinct Intuitive ... - PMC — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11080384/
[19] Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News in the Run — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8740309/
[20] Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News in the Run — https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.790848/full
[21] frontiersin.org — https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/social-psychology/articles/10.3389/frsps.2024.1447313/full
[22] A systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385769093_Susceptibility_to_online_misinformation_A_systematic_meta-analysis_of_demographic_and_psychological_factors
[23] A systematic meta-analysis of demographic and psychological factors — https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2409329121
[24] Susceptibility to online misinformation: A systematic meta-analysis of — https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2409329121?af=R
[25] Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News in the Run — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35002884/
[26] Investigating the Robustness of the Illusory Truth Effect Across — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333694800_Investigating_the_Robustness_of_the_Illusory_Truth_Effect_Across_Individual_Differences_in_Cognitive_Ability_Need_for_Cognitive_Closure_and_Cognitive_Style
[27] Marta MARCHLEWSKA - Institute of Psychology - ResearchGate — https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marta-Marchlewska
[28] A Two-Component, Socio-Epistemic Model of Belief in Conspiracy — https://jspp.psychopen.eu/index.php/jspp/article/download/5273/5273.html?inline=1
[29] Narcissism, uniqueness, and need for closure in conspiracy beliefs — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398024994_When_education_fails_Narcissism_uniqueness_and_need_for_closure_in_conspiracy_beliefs_and_misinformation
[30] WARNING This Contains Misinformation: The Effect of Cognitive — https://escholarship.org/content/qt4h12v5s8/qt4h12v5s8.pdf?v=lg
[31] Malwina Szpitalak Ph.D. Jagiellonian University - ResearchGate — https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Malwina-Szpitalak
[32] The Continued Influence of Implied and Explicitly... - Ovid — https://www.ovid.com/journals/jeplm/fulltext/10.1037/xlm0000155~the-continued-influence-of-implied-and-explicitly-stated
[33] Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone ... - PMC — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10317933/
[34] (PDF) Exploring factors that mitigate the continued influence of — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355292192_Exploring_factors_that_mitigate_the_continued_influence_of_misinformation
[35] the need for closure and conservatism | Arie Kruglanski — https://www.kruglanskiarie.com/the-need-for-closure-and-conservati
[36] The Psychology of Misinformation Across the Lifespan — https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-010923-093547
[37] Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News — https://tuhat.helsinki.fi/ws/files/172230114/fpsyg_12_790848.pdf
[38] Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325900992_Lazy_not_biased_Susceptibility_to_partisan_fake_news_is_better_explained_by_lack_of_reasoning_than_by_motivated_reasoning
[39] The effect of message credibility, need for cognitive closure, and — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333123793_The_effect_of_message_credibility_need_for_cognitive_closure_and_information_sufficiency_on_thought-induced_attitude_change
[40] Miller Bouskill - McGill University — https://www.mcgill.ca/ose/files/ose/2-43_-_miller.pdf
[41] A systematic literature review of the motivations to share fake news — https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371117869_A_systematic_literature_review_of_the_motivations_to_share_fake_news_on_social_media_platforms_and_how_to_fight_them


Please begin the extraction now. Output only the JSON list directly, without any chitchat or explanations.