Development of the ability to assess (fake) news about ecology from adolescence to older adults

Abstract

Misinformation about ecology spreads rapidly in social networks where teenagers, as well as older adults, spend much of their time. Given that teenagers and older adults have cognitive specificities that could make them more or less vulnerable to fake news, in the present study, we investigated the development of the ability to discern fake news from real news about ecology from adolescence to older adults. Adolescents (15–18 years old), young adults (19–23 years old), middle-aged adults (30–45 years old), and older adults (65–80 years old) assessed fake versus real news on ecology and answered questions regarding their attitudes toward eco-friendly behaviors, the resources available to help them engage in these behaviors and their concerns regarding climate change. Finally, the participants completed the cognitive reflection test (CRT) to examine whether their analytical thinking skills were related to fake news detection. The results revealed that adolescents are better at detecting fake news about ecology than older participants are. Results confirmed that analytical reasoning is involved in media truth discernment at all ages and also revealed the valuable influence of the participants’ ecological profiles on the news valuations. This latter effect is, however, absent in adolescents, suggesting that the advantage in media truth discernment for teenagers might result from the critical analysis of information developed in secondary school lessons.

Keywords

Adolescence older adults ecology news assessment fake news real news analytical reasoning skills ecological profile

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allgaier

(2019). Science and environmental communication on YouTube: Strategically distorted communications in online videos on climate change and climate engineering. Frontiers in Communication, 4, Article 36.

Al-Rawi

OʼKeefe

Kane

Bizimana

A. J.

(2021). Twitter’s fake news discourses around climate change and global warming. Frontiers in Communication, 6, Article 729818.

Bago

Rand

D. G.

Pennycook

(2020). Fake news, fast and slow : Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1608–1613. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000729

Balakrishnan

W. Z.

Soo

M. C.

Han

G. J.

Lee

C. J.

(2022). Infodemic and fake news—A comprehensive overview of its global magnitude during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021 : A scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103144

Barber

Taylor

Strick

(2009). Wine consumers’ environmental knowledge and attitudes: Influence on willingness to purchase. International Journal of Wine Research, 1(1), 59–72.

Biddlestone

Azevedo

van der Linden

(2022). Climate of conspiracy: A meta-analysis of the consequences of belief in conspiracy theories about climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 46, 101390.

Bouquet

Hénault

G.-M.

(1997). Commerce international dit équitable, logique marchande et marketing des causes sociales : Vers une symbiose? [So-called fair international trade, market logic, and cause-related marketing : Toward a symbiosis ?]. Université d‘Ottawa. https://doi.org/10.20381/ruor-1238

Brashier

N. M.

Schacter

D. L.

(2020). Aging in an era of fake news. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 316–323.

Brown

V. A.

(2021). An introduction to linear mixed-effects modeling in R. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920960351

10.

Burič

Konrádová

. (2021). Mindware instantiation as a predictor of logical intuitions in the cognitive reflection test. Studia Psychologica, 63, 114–128.

11.

Casey

B. J.

Getz

Galvan

(2008). The adolescent brain. Developmental Review, 28(1), 62–77.

12.

Castells Gómez

Garcia-Milà Palaudarias

M. M.

Miralda Banda

Luna Luján

Pérez Sedano

. (2022). El razonamiento de los adolescentes para gestionar las noticias falsas. Educación XX1 : revista de la Facultad de Educación, 25(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.31693

13.

Cattell

R. B.

(1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10

14.

Chan

R. Y. K.

(2001). Determinants of Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 18(4), 389–413. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.1013

15.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2018). Cumulative link models for ordinal regression with the R package ordinal (Submitted in Journal of Statistical Software, 35). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/vignettes/clm_article.pdf

16.

Corbu

Oprea

D.-A.

Frunzaru

(2022). Romanian adolescents, fake news, and the third-person effect : A cross-sectional study. Journal of Children and Media, 16(3), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2021.1992460

17.

Crone

E. A.

Steinbeis

(2017). Neural perspectives on cognitive control development during childhood and adolescence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.01.003

18.

Diamond

(2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

19.

Fazio

(2020). Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 1(2), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-009

20.

Field

A. P.

(2012). Discovering statistics using R. Sage.

21.

Finucane

M. L.

Gullion

C. M.

(2010). Developing a tool for measuring the decision-making competence of older adults. Psychology and Aging, 25(2), 271.

22.

Flamm

(2009). The impacts of environmental knowledge and attitudes on vehicle ownership and use. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14 (4), 272–279.

23.

Frederick

(2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732

24.

Guess

Nagler

Tucker

(2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 5(1), Article eaau4586.

25.

Hertzog

Smith

R. M.

Ariel

(2018). Does the cognitive reflection test actually capture heuristic versus analytic reasoning styles in older adults? Experimental Aging Research, 44(1), 18–34.

26.

Hopf

Krief

Mehta

Matlin

S. A.

(2019). Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science, 6(5), 190161.

27.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/BF02289447

28.

Hungerford

H. R.

Volk

T. L.

(1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8–22. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/00958964.1990.10753743

29.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/001316446002000116

30.

Kaiser

H. F.

(1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36.

31.

Kim

Moravec

P. L.

Dennis

A. R.

(2019). Combating fake news on social media with source ratings: The effects of user and expert reputation ratings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(3), 931–968.

32.

Koch

Frischlich

Lermer

(2021). The effects of warning labels and social endorsement cues on credibility perceptions of and engagement intentions with fake news. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fw3zq

33.

Kraus

Thomas

Aubin

(2022, 6 décembre). Enquête sur la mésinformation des jeunes et leur rapport à la science et au paranormal à l’heure des réseaux sociaux. https://www.jean-jaures.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/EnqueteTikTok.pdf

34.

Kruger

Dunning

(1999). Unskilled and unaware of it : How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121

35.

Lazer

D. M.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

Metzger

M.J.

Nyhan

Pennycook

Rothschild

Schudson

Sloman

S. A.

Sunstein

C. R.

Thorson

E. A.

Watts

D. J.

Zittrain

J. L.

(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998

36.

Lewandowsky

(2021). Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42(1), 1–21.

37.

Liu

Teng

Han

(2020). How does environmental knowledge translate into pro-environmental behaviors? The mediating role of environmental attitudes and behavioral intentions. Science of the Total Environment, 728, 138126.

38.

Lopez

(2020). Fake climate news: How denying climate change is the ultimate in fake news. The Journal of Sustainability Education, 23, 1–11.

39.

Maertens

Anseel

van der Linden

(2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101455.

40.

Papapicco

Lamanna

D’Errico

(2022). Adolescents’ vulnerability to fake news and to racial hoaxes : A qualitative analysis on Italian sample. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 6(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti6030020

41.

Pehlivanoglu

Lighthall

N. R.

Lin

Chi

K. J.

Polk

Perez

Cahill

B. S.

Ebner

N. C.

(2022). Aging in an “infodemic”: The role of analytical reasoning, affect, and news consumption frequency on news veracity detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(3), 468.

42.

Pennycook

Epstein

Mosleh

Arechar

A. A.

Eckles

Rand

D. G.

(2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592(7855), 7855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2

43.

Pennycook

McPhetres

Zhang

J. G.

Rand

D. G.

(2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media : Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054

44.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

(2019a). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476

45.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

(2019b). Lazy, not biased : Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.011

46.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

(2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(5), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007

47.

Ranney

M. A.

Velautham

(2021). Climate change cognition and education : Given no silver bullet for denial, diverse information-hunks increase global warming acceptance. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.08.001

48.

Rideout

Robb

M. B.

(2019). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2019. Common Sense Media.

49.

Roberts

J. A.

(1996). Green consumers in the 1990s : Profile and implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6

50.

Rossi

Cassotti

Agogué

De Neys

(2013). Development of substitution bias sensitivity: Are adolescents happy fools? Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 35(35), 3321–3326.

51.

Schwartz

Loewenstein

(2017). The chill of the moment : Emotions and proenvironmental behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.16.132

52.

Sindermann

Cooper

Montag

(2020). A short review on susceptibility to falling for fake political news. Current Opinion in Psychology, 36, 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.014

53.

Strudwicke

I. J.

Grant

W. J.

(2020). #JunkScience: Investigating pseudoscience disinformation in the Russian Internet Research Agency tweets. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935071

54.

Taddicken

Wolff

(2023). Climate Change-related counter-attitudinal fake news exposure and its effects on search and selection behavior. Environmental Communication, 17(7), 720–739.

55.

Toplak

M. E.

Flora

D. B.

(2021). Resistance to cognitive biases: Longitudinal trajectories and associations with cognitive abilities and academic achievement across development. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 34(3), 344–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/BDM.2214

56.

Vijaykumar

Jin

Rogerson

Sharma

Maughan

Fadel

de Oliveira Costa

M. S.

Pagliari

Morris

(2021). How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 (mis) information: Randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1).

57.

Waldrop

M. M.

(2017). The genuine problem of fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(48), 12631–12634. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1719005114