Why Older Adults Are More Likely to Share Misinformation Online

Older adults are often assumed to be more vulnerable to misinformation online because of weaker digital skills or age-related cognitive decline. But recent research suggests the reality is far more complex and surprising. In fact, older adults frequently perform just as well as, or even better than, younger people when it comes to identifying false information in experimental settings. And yet, when we look at real-world behavior on social media, adults over 60 are more likely to like, read, and share misinformation than younger users.

This apparent contradiction was the focus of a recent lecture in the Misinformation Speaker Series hosted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. The talk was delivered by Ben Lyons, an assistant professor of communication at the University of Utah who studies media, politics, and misinformation. His work sheds light on why being able to recognize falsehoods does not always translate into better online behavior.

At the center of Lyons’ explanation is something known as partisanship and congeniality bias. In simple terms, congeniality bias refers to the tendency to accept information that aligns with one’s existing beliefs while rejecting information that challenges them. According to Lyons, older adults exhibit stronger congeniality bias than younger people, especially in political contexts. Even when accuracy is important to them in principle, political identity can quietly reshape what feels “true” in practice.

Lyons’ conclusions are based on extensive data. His 2024 study, published in Public Opinion Quarterly, analyzed survey experiments involving about 10,000 respondents, along with detailed internet usage data from approximately 4,500 individuals. The results showed that adults over 60 were, on average, just as skeptical of false headlines as younger adults when directly asked to judge accuracy. Despite this, older adults were still more likely to engage with misinformation online by reading or sharing it.

This gap between belief and behavior led Lyons to examine two common explanations: digital literacy and cognitive aging. While both play a role, neither fully explains the pattern.

Digital literacy does decline with age. Older adults are generally less comfortable navigating online environments, understanding platform mechanics, or recognizing how algorithms amplify content. However, Lyons found an important distinction between digital literacy and news literacy. While older adults may struggle more with the technical aspects of the internet, their understanding of how news is produced, reported, and framed actually increases with age. In other words, adults over 60 often have a better grasp of journalism itself, even if they are less fluent in the digital tools used to distribute it.

Cognitive aging is another commonly cited explanation, but Lyons’ findings challenge the idea that cognitive decline makes older adults easy targets for misinformation. Aging does involve changes, such as slower processing speed and reduced episodic memory. But it also brings strengths. Older adults tend to score higher on measures of semantic memory, general knowledge, and emotional regulation. These traits can, in theory, help them evaluate information more thoughtfully rather than less.

To explore this further, Lyons examined cognitive reflection, which is the ability to override an intuitive but incorrect response and think more carefully. Interestingly, cognitive reflection tends to increase with age. However, the link between cognitive reflection and the ability to reject false news weakens among older adults. For younger people, higher cognitive reflection strongly predicts better discernment. For older adults, that relationship is much weaker, meaning that even strong reflective skills do not consistently prevent misinformation engagement.

A similar pattern appears with emotional responses to news. While older adults often have better emotional regulation, this does not necessarily reduce their likelihood of sharing misleading content when it aligns with their existing views.

These findings helped Lyons narrow in on his main explanation. Older adults rely more heavily on prior knowledge to reduce cognitive effort, which is a normal and efficient strategy. But in political contexts, that prior knowledge is more likely to be shaped by long-standing partisan identities. As a result, information that fits comfortably within those identities feels accurate, trustworthy, and worth sharing, even if it is objectively false.

It is important to keep the scale of the problem in perspective. Lyons emphasized that although older adults are more likely than younger people to share misinformation, the overall percentage remains relatively small. This is not a story about widespread gullibility, but about subtle psychological and social dynamics influencing behavior.

Lyons’ lecture marked the final event of the Shorenstein Center’s Misinformation Speaker Series for fall 2025, with plans for the series to resume in the spring.

Understanding Congeniality Bias More Clearly

Congeniality bias is not unique to older adults, but it tends to intensify with age, particularly in political domains. As people grow older, their beliefs often become more stable and deeply integrated into their identity. This makes belief-consistent information feel not just persuasive, but personally validating. When misinformation supports those beliefs, it may pass an internal credibility check without much resistance.

Digital Environments and Sharing Behavior

Social media platforms are designed to reward engagement, not accuracy. Likes, shares, and comments are encouraged through design features that emphasize speed and emotional reaction. Older adults, who may be less familiar with these dynamics, can unintentionally amplify misleading content simply by interacting with it in good faith.

Why Accuracy Alone Is Not Enough

One of the most important takeaways from this research is that valuing accuracy does not guarantee accurate behavior. Older adults often report caring deeply about truth and reliability, but partisan filtering can subtly redefine what counts as “accurate.” This helps explain why misinformation spreads even among people who are capable of identifying falsehoods in controlled settings.

What This Means Going Forward

Efforts to combat misinformation often focus on improving digital literacy or fact-checking skills. While useful, Lyons’ work suggests these approaches may not be sufficient on their own. Addressing partisan identity, social reinforcement, and belief alignment may be just as important, especially when designing interventions aimed at older populations.

Ultimately, this research paints a nuanced picture. Older adults are not simply falling for misinformation because they lack skills or cognitive ability. Instead, their online behavior reflects a complex interaction between experience, identity, and the modern media environment.

Research paper reference:
Lyons, B. (2024). Public Opinion Quarterly. https://academic.oup.com/poq/