Researchers indicate that a pair of experiments involving children aged 4 to 7 highlights the importance of teaching practical fact-checking skills to children, especially given their natural skepticism and early exposure to the overwhelming misinformation available on the internet. Instead of solely trying to clean up their online surroundings, researchers propose that adults should focus on providing children with tools to critically evaluate the information they come across.
At a time when online misinformation seems prevalent and objective facts are frequently contested, a team of psychologists from UC Berkeley has introduced a somewhat counterintuitive solution: Allow young children to encounter more misinformation online—under controlled conditions.
Conducting this approach in a limited context, coupled with proper guidance and education, can equip children with essential skills to distinguish between fact and fiction, said Evan Orticio, a Ph.D. student in UC Berkeley’s Psychology Department and the lead author of a study released today (Thursday, Oct. 10) in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Orticio asserts that due to children’s inherent skepticism and early contact with the vast misinformation on the internet, it is vital for adults to teach them effective fact-checking techniques. Rather than trying to eliminate all falsehoods online, he believes adults should prioritize empowering children with the skills to critically evaluate the information they encounter.
“We need to provide children with chances to develop their skepticism and critical thinking abilities in the online space, preparing them for a future where they will be engaged in these environments nearly 24/7,” Orticio mentioned.
Orticio and his team conducted two experiments with 122 children aged 4 to 7, examining how their levels of skepticism varied across different online settings.
The first experiment involved an e-book containing varying numbers of true and false statements about animals. For instance, next to a picture of a zebra, some children were told accurate facts, such as zebras having black and white stripes, while others encountered false statements claiming zebras were red and green. Based on this information, the children then indicated whether the statements were true or false. The second study mimicked search engine results with similar true and false animal facts.
Afterwards, children were tasked with assessing a new claim in the same online context, this time involving a fictional alien species named Zorpies. The screen displayed images of 20 alleged Zorpies, one of whom had three eyes while the others wore dark sunglasses that concealed their eyes.
Children were then asked if all Zorpies had three eyes. Before making their final assessment, participants had the opportunity to fact-check the claim by interacting with the aliens, removing their sunglasses to reveal their eyes. Given that children had no prior knowledge about Zorpies, their skepticism relied solely on their evaluation of the digital platform’s reliability.
The researchers discovered that those children most committed to fact-checking the Zorpies claims were also the ones who had previously encountered more false claims about animals. Conversely, children exposed to more reliable environments with fewer false claims earlier in the study hardly engaged in fact-checking. A computer simulation confirmed that children in less reliable environments were more inclined to debunk misinformation.
“Children can tailor their skepticism based on the quality of information they’ve previously encountered in a digital environment,” Orticio stated. “They utilize their understanding of how this online context functions to adjust their trust levels regarding information they see, even when they know little about the content itself.”
This research emerged from an urgent need to comprehend how children navigate an increasingly digital world. Prior studies indicate that about one-third of children have accessed social media by the age of nine, often encountering health misinformation shortly after creating a TikTok account.
Even platforms designed to be child-friendly, like YouTube Kids, have become hubs for harmful content and misinformation. Orticio emphasized that this poses a significant issue since parents may mistakenly believe these platforms are safe for their children to navigate.
However, the new findings suggest that this false sense of security may allow misinformation and inappropriate content to go unchecked, being accepted as true and appropriate.
“Our research implies that if children gain experience in controlled yet imperfect environments where they encounter unreliable information, and we guide them through the process of discerning truth from falsehood, it will foster an expectation for them to remain vigilant,” Orticio concluded.
Orticio acknowledges that not every parent has the time to continuously oversee a child’s media interactions. Instead of attempting to create the safest internet space, he advises parents to engage their children in discussions about how to verify claims and reflect on what they observe online.
Establishing clear expectations about what a platform can and cannot provide is also crucial.
“It’s not about increasing skepticism outright; it’s about equipping them with the tools to use that skepticism effectively,” Orticio explained. “In our experiments, fact-checking was straightforward. In reality, fact-checking can be quite complex. We need to connect that gap.”
