Susceptibility to Misinformation: Exploring Persuasion and Prior Orientation in Recognition-primed Decision Pathways

Abstract

Misinformation poses growing risks to public well-being, contributing to vaccine refusal, climate inaction, and erosion of democratic institutions. A body of research has examined who is vulnerable to misinformation and the psychological and social mechanisms shaping belief, including analytic reasoning, motivated cognition, identity, and social and source cues. However, less attention has been given to how individuals evaluate misinformation in context and how this evaluation interacts with their prior topic-specific associative orientations. This study investigates how these orientations and persuasive framing interact within recognition-primed decision pathways when individuals encounter narratives. Using a qualitative Cognitive Task Analysis guided by the Recognition-Primed Decision framework, six participants evaluated misinformation narratives across three domains: vaccines, climate change, and bioweapons, presented using systematically varied rhetorical framings. Implicit Association Tests were used descriptively to indicate topic-specific associative patterns. Reasoning processes were examined through think-aloud protocols and Critical Decision Method interviews, tracing cue recognition, interpretation, and judgment. The findings illustrate how alignment between narrative cues and participants’ associative orientations can reinforce confirmation tendencies, whereas mismatches may trigger skepticism and reconsideration. The study provides an exploratory process-level account of how persuasion cues interact with prior orientations during recognition-based decision pathways, illustrating susceptibility as a context-sensitive evaluation process.