Older adults’ tendency to share political misinformation has long been a subject of speculation, with many assuming that age-related cognitive decline must be to blame. However, recent research from the University of Colorado Boulder suggests a very different explanation. Rather than struggling to distinguish real news from fabricated stories, adults aged fifty-five and older appear to be more deeply influenced by partisanship. As people age, their political identities often become more entrenched, and this stronger allegiance alters how they judge information that appears in their social media feeds. The issue is therefore less about gullibility and more about the subtle power of ideological loyalty.
The study, conducted with approximately 2,500 participants from the United States and Brazil, sought to uncover the mechanisms underlying this trend. Led by psychology and neuroscience professor Leaf Van Boven, the researchers presented participants with a range of political headlines, some accurate and some thoroughly debunked by fact-checking organisations. These headlines were crafted to appeal to either conservative or liberal viewpoints, depending on the context, and participants were asked how likely they would be to share each one. In an additional experiment, they were also asked to judge whether the content was accurate. What emerged was a consistent pattern: older adults were far more inclined to treat ideologically favourable headlines as precise and to share them, regardless of their actual truthfulness.
This finding challenges earlier research that linked misinformation-sharing among older adults to cognitive limitations or difficulty identifying the sources of online material. While previous studies had shown that people over sixty-five shared significantly more fake news during events such as the 2016 US election, new evidence complicates the picture. A recent meta-analysis of dozens of studies found that older adults often outperform younger adults at spotting fake news, suggesting that the problem’s roots lie elsewhere. The team’s results indicate that strong political identity exerts a powerful effect on information processing, leading older individuals to apply different standards of scrutiny depending on which side benefits from the content.
Notably, the results were consistent across both countries studied, despite their very different political landscapes. Brazil’s multi-party system and the United States’ two-party structure produced nearly identical behavioural patterns, demonstrating that this tendency is not shaped by party systems but by the broader psychological bonds of partisanship. Van Boven notes that older adults did not appear to knowingly share misinformation; instead, they reacted in a highly partisan manner when information aligned with their preferred political narrative, becoming less critical and more trusting without realising it.
The implications of these findings extend beyond individual behaviour into public policy and social media design. Traditional misinformation interventions focus heavily on improving people’s ability to spot false claims or encouraging platforms to label suspicious content. While these strategies remain important, the researchers argue that reducing partisan-driven information sharing is equally essential. Van Boven encourages individuals to reflect on their motivations when posting political material, recognising how ideological commitment can cloud judgement.
Ramos, the study’s co-author, also emphasises the importance of maintaining relationships with people who hold differing political views. Avoiding opposing perspectives—by unfriending, muting, or silencing those who disagree—creates an echo chamber that intensifies partisan reactions and allows misinformation to flourish unchecked. Sustaining cross-ideological friendships and conversations, he argues, is crucial for a functioning democracy and for tempering the biases that lead to misguided sharing behaviour.
More information: Guilherme Ramos et al, The age of misinformation: Older people exhibit greater partisan bias in sharing and evaluating (mis)information accuracy, Journal of Experimental Psychology General. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001868
Journal information: Journal of Experimental Psychology General Provided by University of Colorado at Boulder
