{ "article": { "format_version": 5, "presentation": "complete-card", "overview": "To make sense of an online claim, identify exactly what it says, find the evidence and context behind it, and decide what that evidence can support. Check the source, the specific assertion and any accompanying image separately. You can accept useful information with reasons, leave a question open, and stop when the check is enough for the decision.", "sections": [ { "id": "start-with-the-claim", "role": "explanation", "title": "What exactly are you trying to find out?", "intro": "Information literacy is the ability to judge what an online message supports and use it appropriately. You do not have to become an expert in every subject. Start with the decision in front of you.", "items": [ { "label": "Recover the full message behind a screenshot", "text": "A friend sends a cropped notice saying a workshop is free. Before you rearrange your day, find the complete announcement: free for whom, on what date, and with which conditions? Renee Hobbs's media-literacy framework separates a message's apparent realism from factual checking. A genuine screenshot can omit the line that makes an offer understandable. Other formats select context too: a camera points somewhere, a chart chooses a time range, and a quotation ends at a particular word. Ask which missing detail would change your decision. The original restores what was said; a current organizer notice tells you whether it still applies. These may be different records. Selection is unavoidable and does not by itself show an intent to mislead.", "source_ids": [ "media-context", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Follow matching pages to their underlying evidence", "text": "Three websites saying an event starts at six might all quote the same announcement. Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan distinguish creating a message, producing it as media and distributing it. Those stages can involve different people, so the person who forwards a post may know little about its origin. Follow the attributed report, interview or document, and see what each additional page contributes. Independent support means evidence gathered separately; a rewritten press release is another copy of the same evidence. Multiple links may help you locate the original, but their number does not by itself settle the question. Keep uncertainty about the origin separate from an accusation about the sharer.", "source_ids": [ "disorder" ] }, { "label": "Turn an expert recommendation into a checkable question", "text": "An expert or creator may offer a personal experience, an opinion and a factual promise in the same sentence. Alexios Mantzarlis's UNESCO fact-checking module starts by identifying assertions that evidence can actually test. 'I enjoyed the workshop' tells you about one experience; 'everyone who attends gets a job' asserts a general outcome. Respect the experience while asking what supports the promise. Look for expertise relevant to that outcome and a method that could establish it, such as a clearly described record of participant outcomes. Sponsorship gives you context about purpose; it neither proves the promise nor automatically makes it false. A polished page and an impressive title are starting clues, not completed checks.", "source_ids": [ "fact-check", "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Set the purpose before you open another tab", "text": "There is a difference between finding Saturday's opening time and investigating whether a training program improves employment. Write the question in a single sentence and describe what evidence would answer it. Mike Caulfield's SIFT method begins with stopping: notice what you know about a source, and return to your purpose when checking wanders. Its other moves investigate the source, seek better coverage and trace original context. They are ways to recover meaning, not a requirement to perform the same number of searches every time. For an event date, the organizer's current schedule may resolve the decision. For an uncertain benefit, the useful conclusion may be that more appropriate evidence or professional help is needed.", "source_ids": [ "sift" ] } ] }, { "id": "what-checking-research-shows", "role": "findings", "title": "What helps people judge information?", "intro": "Discernment means telling better-supported information apart from weaker or false information. It improves only when judgment changes in the appropriate direction; rejecting everything is not success.", "items": [ { "label": "Build source judgment with modeled practice", "text": "Lateral reading means leaving an unfamiliar page to learn about it from other sources. Joel Breakstone, Sam Wineburg and colleagues embedded four roughly hour-long modules in a college course, including demonstrations of evaluators' reasoning and practice. Among 87 completing students, more used lateral reading afterward and assessment performance improved. Some still reached incorrect conclusions despite looking elsewhere. This was a counterbalanced before-and-after course study, not a randomized comparison with an untreated group. It supports teachability in that setting, not permanent expertise in every adult. Practise explaining why an outside record answers the claim rather than congratulating yourself for opening it.", "source_ids": [ "lateral" ] }, { "label": "Ask what supports a familiar statement", "text": "The illusory-truth effect is the tendency for repetition to make a statement feel more accurate. Lisa Fazio and colleagues' two experiments found this even when relevant knowledge was available: ease of processing could influence a truth rating. That does not make knowledge useless, and it does not make a familiar claim false. It means the feeling of recognition and the evidence for accuracy are different things. When a familiar claim seems obvious, name its basis: a reliable record, a directly relevant finding, or repeated wording? Keep the first two when they fit. Treat the last as a reason to inspect the support.", "source_ids": [ "familiarity" ] }, { "label": "Bring accuracy into the sharing decision", "text": "Sharing is a choice about what another person will receive, not simply a report of what you believe. Gordon Pennycook and David Rand combined 20 US experiments from their own research program, conducted from 2017 to 2020. Prompts directing attention toward accuracy improved average sharing discernment, mainly by reducing intentions to share false headlines. This is an internal meta-analysis, not 20 independent research teams, and it does not prove lasting behavior from a brief pause. Before forwarding a useful post, consider the belief your caption would create. A practical accuracy question is whether the evidence supports that implication, including its date and scope.", "source_ids": [ "accuracy" ] }, { "label": "Recognize paid material while testing its promise", "text": "Native advertising is promotional material designed to resemble the articles or posts surrounding it. In an authored research account, Michelle Amazeen described experiments in which explicit, prominent disclosures improved recognition of advertising. The result concerns recognizing commercial purpose; it does not establish whether the promoted benefit works. A sponsor label helps you understand who paid for the message. Next, look for evidence addressing the promised result. A demonstration may show how a product operates while leaving its comparative performance unanswered. The underlying experiments are historical, so the finding should not be turned into a current estimate of how often people recognize advertisements on every platform.", "source_ids": [ "ad-recognition" ] }, { "label": "Use corrections to supply an accurate replacement", "text": "The Debunking Handbook, coauthored by Stephan Lewandowsky, Briony Swire-Thompson, Emily Vraga and other researchers, explains continued influence: an old account can affect later reasoning even after it is corrected. A clear accurate alternative can fill the explanatory gap. If a workshop moved, communicate the current venue and source rather than sending only 'that location is wrong.' If the reason for the move is known, explain it; if it is unknown, say so. Inventing a convenient reason introduces another unsupported claim. This is research-informed communication guidance, not a guarantee that a recipient will agree or forget the earlier account.", "source_ids": [ "correction" ] } ] }, { "id": "choose-a-checking-method", "role": "perspectives", "title": "Which approach fits the uncertainty?", "intro": "The field studies several approaches, and their results depend on the task, instruction and audience. These are practical alternatives with real limits, rather than one method that settles every case.", "items": [ { "label": "Choose source checking or claim checking deliberately", "text": "If your uncertainty is 'who is this publisher?', investigate the source. If it is 'did this event happen?', search for direct evidence about that event. Lisa Oswald and colleagues compared source-focused lateral-reading instruction with claim-focused search instruction in 2,666 German adults. Immediate improvements were small and some estimates were uncertain. Around two weeks later, all groups had improved and differences from the control group were no longer distinguishable. Controls also received debriefing, so this is not proof that participants forgot the lessons. The study establishes neither a universal winner nor lasting protection. Choose the entry point that addresses the gap you can identify.", "source_ids": [ "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Evaluate search results instead of treating search as proof", "text": "Looking up a claim can reveal an authoritative record, but it can also turn up a cluster of weak pages repeating it. Sanderson and Aslett's author briefing describes five experiments with selected news in the United States. Encouragement to search increased belief in false or misleading articles; the effect was concentrated among people whose results contained low-quality sources. That association does not by itself establish the exact mechanism. The experiments ran in 2019–2021, and search systems change. Oswald's later German study found no search backfire in its task. The useful lesson is to inspect the evidence search delivers, rather than assuming searching must help or must harm.", "source_ids": [ "search-quality", "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Look for reasons to accept reliable information", "text": "Media-literacy teaching can emphasize skepticism, justified trust, or both. Sacha Altay, Andrea De Angelis and Emma Hoes tested these approaches in a preregistered US experiment that recruited 3,919 participants. All three improved immediate headline discernment; their effects were more alike than different. Mixed tips helped with acceptance of true news and rejection of false news. These were accuracy ratings or stated willingness to share, not proof of permanent habits. A constructive check therefore asks what would warrant confidence as well as what would weaken it. If the current organizer's schedule directly answers your question, recognizing that support is part of good judgment.", "source_ids": [ "constructive" ] }, { "label": "Use preparation and correction for their different jobs", "text": "Prebunking prepares you for a misleading technique before encountering it; debunking corrects a particular error after exposure. Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden describe preparation using advance warning, a weakened example of a technique and a response to it. Separately, Tay and colleagues compared pre-emptive and retroactive interventions in a fair-trade misinformation experiment with 735 participants. Both generally reduced reliance on misinformation. That limited comparison does not establish equivalence or one winner across audiences. Learn a technique when it helps you recognize a pattern, and correct an existing misunderstanding when there is a specific fact to replace.", "source_ids": [ "prebunk", "predebunk-comparison" ] } ] }, { "id": "use-evidence-in-real-life", "role": "application", "title": "How to connect evidence to an ordinary decision", "intro": "The examples below are original illustrations, not actual incidents or experimentally validated exercises. Each shows how to preserve useful detail while keeping the conclusion within the evidence.", "items": [ { "label": "Use an outside record for the claim it answers", "text": "Imagine a course advertises recognition by a professional organization. You find the organization's own list, match the exact course and confirm that the listing is current. That supports recognition; it does not establish job placement, teaching quality or whether the timetable suits you. A former attendee's detailed account can help with the experience, while an outcomes study would address a different promise. Breakstone and Wineburg's instructional research makes evaluator reasoning visible. Apply that principle by explaining which part of your conclusion the outside record changed. Check the exact course name: a similar name is not a matching entry.\n\nThe advert also says graduates are 'job ready.' Ask what that means and what evidence the provider uses. You have confirmed recognition, while the employment promise remains unresolved; a testimonial about enjoyable lessons answers a different question.\n\nSuppose the provider supplies an outcomes report that combines several courses. Before applying its headline to this one, check which graduates, dates and outcomes were counted. If the specific result remains unavailable, the conclusion stays limited to verified recognition. This is an invented verification path, not a report about an actual provider. Its stopping point is a clearly bounded answer, even when every promotional promise cannot be settled.", "source_ids": [ "lateral", "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Combine official records with scoped firsthand experience", "text": "A venue can state its opening arrangements; an attendee can describe noise, queues or the experience of visiting; a researcher can investigate broader patterns. Choose a source for what it can reasonably know. The Commons Library guide emphasizes relevant expertise, currency and transparent methods. Mantzarlis also asks how close evidence is to the phenomenon. An attendee's account need not have a citation to be useful as an account, but one enjoyable visit cannot guarantee everyone's experience. Ask about the date and circumstances if they matter. Preserve the observation, and label a wider conclusion as an inference. A mixed answer can be useful without pretending all its parts have identical evidential weight.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "fact-check" ] }, { "label": "Read the condition attached to a quoted answer", "text": "Suppose a meeting clip ends after 'the room will be available.' The full answer continues 'if repairs finish by Friday.' The booking is conditional. Caulfield's tracing move and Hobbs's context framework help recover that condition; you then need a current update to know whether it was met. Keep two dates separate: when the statement was made and when availability must be confirmed. The original recording settles what was said, while the update answers whether you can book the room now.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "media-context" ] }, { "label": "Read the evidence behind a sponsored demonstration", "text": "Imagine an advertisement shows a tool completing one task quickly and concludes that it always saves hours. The visible demonstration supports the fact that the shown task was performed under those conditions; the broad claim needs more support. Check the comparison, setup, unshown preparation and whether the result was measured consistently. Amazeen's disclosure research helps identify the promotional setting, while Mantzarlis's evidence framework helps assess the inference. Funding can shape the selection of examples, but the remedy is to inspect the method, not automatically invert the claim. Save the precise result that is supported and separate it from the sales conclusion. This remains evidence evaluation, not a buying recommendation.", "source_ids": [ "ad-recognition", "fact-check" ] }, { "label": "Read Content Credentials as recorded history", "text": "Provenance means an account of an asset's origin and changes. C2PA Content Credentials can supply tamper-evident statements about parts of that history. The version 2.2 explainer says this does not determine whether the depicted information is factually true; history may be incomplete and metadata can be removed. A photograph from a real event can still appear under an incorrect date or place. An absent credential therefore leaves a history question open rather than proving forgery. Ask who signed the record, what it actually says and which part of your claim it supports. Then compare the caption with records of the event. File history and factual context answer different questions.", "source_ids": [ "provenance" ] }, { "label": "Use image clues to begin verification of the story", "text": "Guo, Swire-Thompson and Hu studied 1,012 US adults rating 40 headline/photo pairs: true headlines with real pictures and false headlines with AI-generated pictures. Specific tips about abnormal details, incoherent text and foreground/background patterns improved discernment; both specific and general tips also reduced belief in real headlines. The task measured the combined story and image immediately, without ordinary source or engagement cues. It did not isolate image-authenticity skill. Generators change, so neither missing glitches nor a plausible face verifies a picture. State the claim the image supposedly establishes, look for its earliest available context and independent reporting of the same event, and leave it unverified when that support is missing.", "source_ids": [ "ai-images", "provenance" ] }, { "label": "Identify the missing option in a persuasive choice", "text": "Imagine a post presents a decision as 'buy this course or remain uninformed.' A false dichotomy is an argument that presents too few options as if they exhaust the possibilities. You may also be able to use a public library, a free explanation or another course. Roozenbeek and van der Linden's prebunking account teaches a warning, a manageable example and a way to answer the technique. Practise asking which options were left out, then examine them. This does not show that every two-option decision is manipulative; sometimes two options really are all that remain. Recognizing the technique gives you a question to investigate, not immunity from persuasion or a verdict on the speaker's intent.", "source_ids": [ "prebunk" ] }, { "label": "Share the replacement fact with enough context", "text": "Imagine people believe a workshop was canceled because nobody enrolled. An official notice says a building repair caused the cancellation. A helpful correction supplies the actual reason, current arrangements and the notice, rather than merely denying the enrollment rumor. If the notice confirms cancellation but gives no reason, keep the reason unresolved. The Debunking Handbook explains why a replacement account can help when the old story filled an explanatory gap. Before sending it, check what the recipient needs: location, date and affected group may matter more than your entire search history. Treat accuracy as part of communicating. A clear correction is useful even when you cannot guarantee agreement or erase every earlier impression.", "source_ids": [ "correction", "accuracy" ] }, { "label": "Save the evidence that changed your mind", "text": "Keep a short record of the exact claim, relevant date, supporting passage and remaining question. Suppose ten event roundups add no new evidence, but the current organizer notice states the correct Saturday. Write that result alongside any unresolved accessibility arrangement and its follow-up contact. Caulfield's stopping principle returns attention to purpose; the Commons Library guide keeps relevance and currency in view. The record is an editorial reflection exercise, not a tested scoring system. It allows you to distinguish time spent from evidence gained. When circumstances change, revisit the particular fact that became outdated instead of starting the whole investigation again. This also gives another person a conclusion they can inspect.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "source-evaluation" ] } ] }, { "id": "test-common-claims", "role": "findings", "title": "Check these common claims", "intro": "These verdicts describe the named evidence. They are a reading companion for recurring claims, not an automated assessment of a new post.", "items": [ { "label": "Learn strategies and keep practicing their reasoning", "text": "Claim: 'People can learn strategies for evaluating online sources.' Verdict: established in the studied instructional setting. Breakstone and colleagues found better strategy use and assessment performance after an online college course. Using a strategy still did not always produce correct judgments. Treat the result as a reason to practise, not a promise that one tip turns anyone into an expert.", "source_ids": [ "lateral" ] }, { "label": "Inspect what a search actually adds", "text": "Claim: 'Searching for a claim always makes my judgment more accurate.' Verdict: not supported. Aslett and colleagues' experiments contradict the word 'always'; Oswald's later task also shows that outcomes differ by setting. Search is a route to evidence. It does not become evidence of accuracy merely because you performed it.", "source_ids": [ "search-quality", "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Separate recognition from factual support", "text": "Claim: 'Repetition can make a claim feel more truthful.' Verdict: established in Fazio and colleagues' experiments. Familiarity influenced ratings even with relevant knowledge available. This is a tendency in the studied tasks, not proof that every repeated claim is wrong or that you personally cannot use your knowledge.", "source_ids": [ "familiarity" ] }, { "label": "Match expertise to the particular assertion", "text": "Claim: 'An impressive credential proves a particular claim.' Verdict: not supported. Relevant expertise can contribute useful evidence, but the Commons Library's framework also examines accuracy, method, transparency and scope. A specialist's title cannot establish every statement, especially outside that person's field. Check the assertion and evidence together.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation" ] }, { "label": "Look beyond the first lesson for durable benefit", "text": "Claim: 'One brief lesson reliably provides lasting protection from misinformation.' Verdict: not supported by the evidence here. Oswald's trial did not show clear treatment-control differences at follow-up. Because the control group improved too, that is not evidence of proven forgetting. It leaves the guarantee of lasting protection unestablished.", "source_ids": [ "adult-methods" ] }, { "label": "Count independent evidence rather than matching links", "text": "Claim: 'Two matching links are enough to verify any claim.' Verdict: talk. They may repeat one source and different questions require different kinds of evidence. Wardle and Derakhshan's distinction between creation and distribution helps explain this dependency. Useful corroboration has an identifiable contribution; a universal link count cannot establish it.", "source_ids": [ "disorder" ] }, { "label": "Check a photograph and its caption separately", "text": "Claim: 'If a photo looks real, the headline is true.' Verdict: not supported. Guo's experiment tested headline/photo pairs, not an all-purpose image detector. Hobbs separates apparent realism from factual checking, and C2PA separates recorded history from factual truth. A convincing image can still accompany an unsupported caption. Find evidence for the event the caption asserts.", "source_ids": [ "ai-images", "media-context", "provenance" ] } ] }, { "id": "complete-one-useful-check", "role": "next_steps", "title": "One useful check to try now", "intro": "Choose an ordinary public claim you want to use or share. Keep this exercise small enough to finish with a clear result.", "items": [ { "label": "Write one claim and the evidence it needs", "text": "Your move: copy a single checkable sentence, then write the decision it affects and what evidence would answer it. Keep a personal judgment, such as whether an event is enjoyable, separate from a factual claim about its arrangements. Mantzarlis's distinction between assertions and opinions helps define the target; Caulfield's purpose check keeps the search relevant. Keep the original wording beside your question so the investigation stays focused.", "source_ids": [ "fact-check", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Try comparing the extract with its original", "text": "Find the complete public notice, passage or recording and compare its date, audience, qualifications and conditions with the shared extract. Write the specific detail that changes or confirms your interpretation. This applies the context checks taught by Hobbs and Caulfield. If the original is unavailable, record that gap rather than declaring the report false. A missing source can prevent verification of a claim without invalidating every experience described in the message.", "source_ids": [ "media-context", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Try tracing an image and saving a scoped conclusion", "text": "When the claim relies on a picture, seek its original context and another source addressing the same event. Inspect available credentials as history, and treat visual oddities as clues rather than a verdict. Save a sentence stating what the evidence supports, what remains open and where you could check next. This applies SIFT and the provenance distinction; it is a practice exercise, not a timed verification rule.", "source_ids": [ "sift", "provenance", "ai-images" ] } ] }, { "id": "match-checking-to-consequences", "role": "cautions", "title": "Use a check that fits the consequences", "items": [ { "label": "Keep consequential decisions with qualified support", "text": "This is a reading companion, not a professional assessment of a particular claim. Use it to organize questions, not to diagnose a condition, make a financial commitment or settle a legal dispute. The amount of checking should fit the consequence of being mistaken. For consequential decisions, take the specific claim and supporting material to a suitably qualified person. Keep private information out of public searches and requests for help. Missing links do not, by themselves, make someone’s reported experience false.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "sift" ] }, { "label": "Use named evidence within its proper scope", "text": "Named sources. Honest paraphrase of the finding. Not medical, legal, or financial advice. Most studies here concern selected news, students or online research participants, rather than every kind of knowledge encountered in everyday life. A research result, a professional method and an original worked example contribute differently. Use the source notes to see which is which. You can leave a claim unverified, accept a narrower supported conclusion or take a more consequential question to a relevant professional without pretending the whole subject is settled.", "source_ids": [ "source-evaluation", "lateral", "adult-methods" ] } ] } ], "related": [ "learning", "attention", "career" ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "sift", "title": "SIFT (The Four Moves)", "url": "https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Author's four moves: stop, investigate source, find better coverage, trace original context; stopping also restores purpose.", "limitations": "Professional method, not a fixed-time guarantee or independently tested note-taking program. The method, rather than reader comments, supports this explanation." }, { "id": "lateral", "title": "Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course", "url": "https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/lateral-reading-college-students-learn-to-critically-evaluate-internet-sources-in-an-online-course/", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Four instructional modules; 87 completing students; strategy use and assessment performance improved, but some lateral readers still made incorrect judgments.", "limitations": "Counterbalanced pre/post college study without an untreated randomized control; no durable universal adult transfer is established." }, { "id": "familiarity", "title": "Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth", "url": "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26301795/", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Two experiments reported repetition-related perceived truth even when relevant knowledge was available.", "limitations": "Based on the indexed primary abstract, not the complete paper. No sample size, effect magnitude or individual prediction is asserted." }, { "id": "accuracy", "title": "Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation", "url": "https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30073-5", "kind": "review", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Pennycook and Rand internal meta-analysis of 20 US experiments: better sharing discernment, primarily lower intention to share false headlines.", "limitations": "Primary article, including results and discussion. Internal research program measuring intentions and experimental-session outcomes, not permanent behavior or verification of a particular post." }, { "id": "ad-recognition", "title": "Content Confusion in an Era of Fake News", "url": "https://www.bu.edu/articles/2018/content-confusion-in-an-era-of-fake-news/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Amazeen's authored account of native-advertising experiments: more explicit and prominent disclosures improved recognition.", "limitations": "2018 public research explanation, not a fresh estimate of advertising prevalence, current platform practice, or a benefit-efficacy study." }, { "id": "media-context", "title": "Media Literacy Concepts and Definitions", "url": "https://mediaeducationlab.com/media-literacy-concepts-and-definitions", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Hobbs's framework: selected representations, authenticity as apparent realism, accuracy as factual verification, and context.", "limitations": "Public excerpts from a 2021 book; conceptual education, not experimental proof or visual AI detection." }, { "id": "constructive", "title": "Media literacy tips promoting reliable news improve discernment and enhance trust in traditional media", "url": "https://d-nb.info/1346902364/34", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Altay, De Angelis and Hoes US preregistered experiment recruited 3,919: skepticism, trust and mixed tips improved immediate accuracy/sharing discernment; effects more alike than different.", "limitations": "Primary paper measuring ratings and stated willingness to share, not permanent benefit or universal prevalence." }, { "id": "adult-methods", "title": "Boosting Media Literacy Using Lateral Reading and Online Search Interventions", "url": "https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976261453813", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Oswald and colleagues randomized 2,666 German adults. Small immediate estimates; some uncertain. At roughly two weeks, all groups improved and treatment-control differences were not distinguishable; no search backfire found here.", "limitations": "Primary article, first published online July 6 and in an August 2026 issue. Controls also received debriefing; results do not prove forgetting, a universal winner, subgroup effects or equivalence." }, { "id": "search-quality", "title": "Online search results can increase belief in misinformation", "url": "https://media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-023-03665-4/d41586-023-03665-4.pdf", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Sanderson and Aslett author briefing of five experiments; search encouragement increased belief in selected misinformation; effect concentrated among lower-quality search results.", "limitations": "Author briefing of DOI 10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y, not a full-paper review. Selected U.S. news from 2019–2021; the low-quality-result association does not isolate the mechanism, and algorithms change." }, { "id": "source-evaluation", "title": "How to evaluate sources", "url": "https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10822/", "kind": "official", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Campbell Brooks official Commons Library guidance on accuracy, relevant authority, currency, transparency, methods, funding and uncertainty.", "limitations": "Official guidance dated May 5, 2026. Evaluation checklist, not experimental validation; privacy and professional-help safeguards here are editorial boundaries." }, { "id": "disorder", "title": "Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Wardle and Derakhshan: creation, production and distribution can involve different actors and motives.", "limitations": "Conceptual framework from the 2017 report, pages 19–25. The authors’ views are not necessarily Council of Europe policy, and origin alone cannot establish motive." }, { "id": "fact-check", "title": "Fact-checking 101, Module 5 in Journalism, 'Fake News' & Disinformation", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0.pdf", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Alexios Mantzarlis: distinguish checkable assertions from opinions and assess proximity, expertise, rigor, transparency, reliability and interest.", "limitations": "Journalism education in the UNESCO handbook, pages 89–92, not an automatic verdict or a clinical, legal or financial service." }, { "id": "correction", "title": "The Debunking Handbook 2020", "url": "https://climatecommunication.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DebunkingHandbook2020.pdf", "kind": "review", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Lewandowsky and coauthors: misinformation may continue influencing reasoning; clear factual replacement and an accurate explanatory alternative can help correction.", "limitations": "Research synthesis and guidance, not a guarantee of persuasion. A replacement explanation must remain accurate rather than merely convenient." }, { "id": "prebunk", "title": "Debunking versus prebunking", "url": "https://inoculation.science/debunking-versus-prebunking/", "kind": "professional", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Roozenbeek and van der Linden's first-party explanation of advance warning, weakened technique exposure and refutation.", "limitations": "Intervention developers’ public explanation. Immunity is a metaphor, not permanent protection or proof of comparative superiority." }, { "id": "predebunk-comparison", "title": "A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation", "url": "https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjop.12551", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Tay and colleagues abstract reports experiment with 735 participants concerning fair-trade misinformation; both approaches generally reduced reliance.", "limitations": "Publisher abstract, not a full-methods review. No duration, effect-size, equivalence or universal-winner claim. First online December 2021; 2022 issue." }, { "id": "provenance", "title": "C2PA and Content Credentials Explainer, version 2.2", "url": "https://spec.c2pa.org/specifications/specifications/2.2/explainer/Explainer.html", "kind": "official", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Sections 7.2.1–7.2.3: provenance may be incomplete, metadata can be removed, and history alone does not determine factual truth.", "limitations": "Official explainer pinned to version 2.2; it is not presented as the latest version, a universally available feature or a truth/AI detector." }, { "id": "ai-images", "title": "Specific media literacy tips improve AI-generated visual misinformation discernment", "url": "https://cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s41235-025-00648-z.pdf", "kind": "study", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "Guo, Swire-Thompson and Hu 2025 primary PDF: 1,012 analyzed US adults rated 20 true-real and 20 false-AI headline/photo pairs; specific tips improved discernment, while both tip types reduced belief in real headlines.", "limitations": "Combined headline-image test with immediate outcomes and no source or engagement cues; mixed-model analyses were not preregistered. It cannot isolate image-authenticity skill or predict detection of current generators." }, { "id": "reader-question", "title": "IWTL how to do personal research without getting overwhelmed", "url": "https://www.reddit.com/r/IWantToLearn/comments/1v3lptd/iwtl_how_to_do_personal_research_without_getting/", "kind": "question_signal", "accessed_at": "2026-10-01", "supports": "An individual adult’s question about ordinary research, phone use, credibility, scope and knowing when to stop.", "limitations": "Qualitative relevance only; relative posting date, no representative demand or factual authority. Comment advice not adopted as evidence." } ], "professional_panel": [ { "name": "Sam Wineburg", "credential": "Stanford Margaret Jacks Professor of Education, Emeritus; Digital Inquiry Group cofounder and Chief Innovation Officer", "official_url": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people", "public_usefulness": "Public source-evaluation curriculum and coauthored Verified; official biography lists public coverage.", "contribution": "Coauthored lateral-reading course research; helps make evaluator reasoning visible.", "boundary": "College instructional study cannot establish every adult's enduring skill; curriculum developer perspective.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Joel Breakstone", "credential": "Digital Inquiry Group cofounder and Executive Director; Stanford education PhD", "official_url": "https://www.inquirygroup.org/about/people", "public_usefulness": "Leads freely distributed curriculum and assessments; official biography records education and public research coverage.", "contribution": "Lead author of the 87-student lateral-reading study; separates strategy adoption from correct evaluation.", "boundary": "Pre/post course evidence without randomized untreated control.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Mike Caulfield", "credential": "Web-literacy educator, SIFT developer and Verified coauthor; official author biography lists University of Washington Bothell technology role", "official_url": "https://hapgood.us/about/", "public_usefulness": "Public SIFT text, courseware, talks and social links are accessible.", "contribution": "Offers purpose, source investigation, better coverage and original-context moves.", "boundary": "Method developer and consultant; author's claims of wide adoption are not effectiveness evidence.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Lisa Fazio", "credential": "Vanderbilt Associate Professor of Psychology and Human Development", "official_url": "https://news.vanderbilt.edu/experts/expertprofile/?expert_username=lisa.fazio2", "public_usefulness": "Official expert page lists interviews, teaching videos and explanations of belief and repetition.", "contribution": "Coauthored knowledge/illusory-truth experiments; explains how familiarity can influence judgment.", "boundary": "Abstract-only verification of 2015 paper; no estimate of a reader's susceptibility.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Gordon Pennycook", "credential": "Cornell Associate Professor of Psychology and Dorothy and Ariz Mehta Faculty Leadership Fellow", "official_url": "https://psychology.cornell.edu/gordon-pennycook", "public_usefulness": "Official page lists public misinformation interviews and classes; coauthored accessible accuracy-prompt research.", "contribution": "Internal meta-analysis connects attention to accuracy with sharing discernment.", "boundary": "Sharing intentions are not guaranteed true beliefs or lasting platform behavior.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "David Rand", "credential": "Cornell Henrietta Johnson Louis Professor of Management; professor of information science", "official_url": "https://business.cornell.edu/profiles/dgr7/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography describes publicly discussed research on inaccurate beliefs, sharing and cooperation.", "contribution": "Coauthored accuracy-prompt synthesis; distinguishes sharing intention from factual accuracy.", "boundary": "Same internal research program as Pennycook, not an independent replication; institutional or industry relationships should be assessed for a specific claim, not treated as automatic proof or disproof.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Sander van der Linden", "credential": "Cambridge Professor of Social Psychology in Society and Director of Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab", "official_url": "https://www.bennettschool.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/sander-van-der-linden/", "public_usefulness": "Public Foolproof book and first-party inoculation explanations.", "contribution": "Coauthored prebunking explanation of warning, technique example and response.", "boundary": "Developer/public-book perspective; inoculation metaphor does not promise permanent protection.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Stephan Lewandowsky", "credential": "University of Bristol Chair in Cognitive Psychology", "official_url": "https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Stephan-Lewandowsky-ebfa6836-6895-4acf-b57b-b2acdf30ec99/", "public_usefulness": "Freely available Debunking Handbook provides practical public correction guidance.", "contribution": "Coauthored synthesis on continued influence and accurate replacement accounts.", "boundary": "Synthesis is not a guarantee of persuasion or a license to invent an explanation.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Briony Swire-Thompson", "credential": "Northeastern Assistant Professor of Psychology; director of Psychology of Misinformation Lab", "official_url": "https://cos.northeastern.edu/people/briony-swire-thompson/", "public_usefulness": "Official lab profile explains belief change and designing corrections; public handbook coauthor.", "contribution": "Coauthored Guo visual-misinformation experiment and Debunking Handbook.", "boundary": "Headline-plus-image test does not isolate image authenticity; not clinical advice.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Emily Vraga", "credential": "University of Minnesota full professor; Don and Carole Larson Professor in Health Communication", "official_url": "https://hubbardschool.umn.edu/ekvraga", "public_usefulness": "Official public profile explains social-media correction and news-literacy research; public handbook coauthor.", "contribution": "Connects correction to the information people consume and share.", "boundary": "Issue and platform context matter; no universal message-placement recipe inferred.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Michelle Amazeen", "credential": "Boston University Associate Dean of Research and Associate Professor of Mass Communication; Communication Research Center director", "official_url": "https://www.bu.edu/com/profile/michelle-amazeen/", "public_usefulness": "Authored accessible BU account of native-advertising disclosure experiments.", "contribution": "Distinguishes recognizing sponsored format from evaluating the advertised assertion.", "boundary": "Historical experiment does not establish current platform recognition rates or product benefit.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Claire Wardle", "credential": "Cornell Associate Professor in Department of Communication; communication PhD", "official_url": "https://cals.cornell.edu/people/claire-wardle", "public_usefulness": "Official profile records cross-sector verification education and international news/public institutions; public report coauthor.", "contribution": "Creation/production/distribution framework separates a forwarded message from its origin.", "boundary": "Conceptual framework cannot establish a particular sharer's motives or claim truth.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Peter Adams", "credential": "News Literacy Project Senior Vice President of Research and Design", "official_url": "https://newslit.org/team/", "public_usefulness": "Official team listing and indexed 2019 The Sift credit establish public educator contribution.", "contribution": "Screenshot/original-record comparison lesson informs the practical extract comparison preserved here.", "boundary": "The historical lesson is represented by an official indexed excerpt rather than a full-page review. It supplies a teaching example, not evidence of adult intervention efficacy.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Alexios Mantzarlis", "credential": "Cornell Tech Director of Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative; former founding IFCN director", "official_url": "https://tech.cornell.edu/people/alexios-mantzarlis/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography records fact-checking education and code-of-principles work; authored UNESCO teaching module.", "contribution": "Precisely identify a factual assertion and evaluate evidence's proximity, method and interest.", "boundary": "Professional method is not infallible; prior Google role and institutional work provide context.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" }, { "name": "Renee Hobbs", "credential": "University of Rhode Island Professor of Communication Studies; Media Education Lab founder and director", "official_url": "https://web.uri.edu/harrington/meet/renee-hobbs/", "public_usefulness": "Official biography records research, public education and community service; public media-literacy definitions.", "contribution": "Explains selected representations and the difference between apparent realism and verified facts.", "boundary": "Conceptual framework is not an efficacy trial or an AI-image detector.", "reviewed_at": "2026-10-01" } ] }