OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
The British journal of developmental psychology
Mar 26, 2025;

Trust issues: Adolescents' epistemic vigilance towards online sources.

Pip Brown, Michaela Gummerum
Author Information
  1. Pip Brown: Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK. ORCID
  2. Michaela Gummerum: Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
PMID: 40143434 DOI: 10.1111/bjdp.12559

Abstract

Development of epistemic vigilance towards online information is crucial for adolescents in the context of widespread online 'information pollution'. Children have demonstrated selective mistrust of webpages with typographical but not semantic errors. We used a selective trust task to investigate whether this pattern changes through adolescence. Participants read two pairs of sources about scientific topics, each pair containing a webpage with either semantic or typographical errors. When asked novel factual questions, which source participants drew answers from indicates the degree of selective trust in the source. As anticipated, age group significantly predicted selective trust scores, with older adolescents (N���=���222, 16-20���years, M���=���18���years) receiving higher scores than younger adolescents (N���=���153, 11-16���years, M���=���13.7���years.). While this age effect was present in both typographical and semantic conditions, it was particularly pronounced for semantic errors. Additionally, pre-exposure to an accuracy prompt was not a significant factor in selective trust scores, demonstrating some limitations in the utility of this prime for more complex selective trust decisions. We theorize that semantic errors may have more salience than typographical errors for older adolescents' selective trust decisions, whereas younger adolescents place more emphasis on a visual understanding of source credibility.

Keywords

adolescents epistemic vigilance online behaviour selective trust

References

  1. Birch, S. A. J., Vauthier, S. A., & Bloom, P. (2008). Three��� and four���year���olds spontaneously use others' past performance to guide their learning. Cognition, 107(3), 1018���1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.008
  2. Coiro, J. (2003). Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. The Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458���464. http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/
  3. Coiro, J., Coscarelli, C., Maykel, C., & Forzani, E. (2015). Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 59(3), 287���297. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.448
  4. Conklin, J. (1987). Hypertext: An introduction and survey. Computer, 20, 17���41.
  5. Delgado, P., Vargas, C., Ackerman, R., & Salmer��n, L. (2018). Don't throw away your printed books: A meta���analysis on the effects of reading media on reading comprehension. Educational Research Review, 25, 23���38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.003
  6. Dinet, J., Bastien, J. M. C., & Kitajima, M. (2010). What, where and how are young people looking for in a search engine results page? Impact of typographical cues and prior domain knowledge. Conference Internationale Francophone Sur I'Interaction Homme���Machine, 262.
  7. Einav, S., Levey, A., Patel, P., & Westwood, A. (2020). Epistemic vigilance online: Textual inaccuracy and children's selective trust in webpages. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 38(4), 566���579. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12335
  8. Einav, S., & Robinson, E. J. (2010). Children's sensitivity to error magnitude when evaluating informants. Cognitive Development, 25(3), 218���232.
  9. Einav, S., Rydland, V., Gr��ver, V., Robinson, E. J., & Harris, P. L. (2018). Children's trust in print: What is the impact of late exposure to reading instruction? Infant and Child Development, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2102
  10. Eyden, J., Robinson, E. J., Einav, S., & Jaswal, V. K. (2013). The power of print: Children's trust in unexpected printed suggestions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(3), 593���608.
  11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175���191.
  12. Fazio, L. K. (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). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr���2020���009
  13. Fersini, E., Messina, E., & Pozzi, F. A. (2016). Expressive signals in social media languages to improve polarity detection. Information Processing and Management, 52(1), 20���35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2015.04.004
  14. Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Wood, K. (2011). Reading for details in online and printed text: A prerequisite for deep reading. Middle School Journal, 42, 58���63.
  15. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2010). Kids and credibility: An empirical examination of youth, digital media use, and information credibility. MIT Press. www.macfound.org
  16. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906���911. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003���066X.34.10.906
  17. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(4), 601���613.
  18. Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Takezawa, M., & Mata, J. (2008). To give or not to give: Children's and adolescents' sharing and moral negotiations in economic decision situations. Child Development, 79(3), 562���576.
  19. Hargittai, F. E., Fullerton, L., Menchen���Trevino, E., & Yates Thomas, K. (2010). Trust online: Young adults' evaluation of web content. International Journal of Communication, 4, 468���494. http://ijoc.org
  20. Harris, P. L., & Corriveau, K. H. (2011). Young children's selective trust in informants. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 366(1567), 1179���1187. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0321
  21. Hauser, D. J., Ellsworth, P. C., & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 998.
  22. Keil, F. C., Stein, C., Webb, L., Billings, V. D., & Rozenblit, L. (2008). Discerning the division of cognitive labor: An emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 259���300. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863339
  23. Kirschner, P. A., & van Merri��nboer, J. J. G. (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169���183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.804395
  24. Koenig, M. A., Cl��ment, F., & Harris, P. L. (2004). Trust in testimony: Children's use of true and false statements. Psychological Science, 15(10), 694���698.
  25. Kozyreva, A., Wineburg, S., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). Critical ignoring as a core competence for digital citizens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(1), 81���88. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221121570
  26. Lai, E. R. (2011). Metacognition: A literature review. Always Learning: Pearson Research Report, 24, 1���40.
  27. Ledoux, K., Traxler, M. J., & Swaab, T. Y. (2007). Syntactic priming in comprehension: Evidence from event���related potentials. Psychological Science, 18(2), 135���143.
  28. Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L. A. (2017). New literacies: A dual���level theory of the changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Education, 197(2), 1���18. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741719700202
  29. List, A., Grossnickle, E. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). Undergraduate Students' justifications for source selection in a digital academic context. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(1), 22���61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115606659
  30. Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID���19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 337���348. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562���021���01056���1
  31. Lucas, A. J., Burdett, E. R. R., Burgess, V., Wood, L. A., McGuigan, N., Harris, P. L., & Whiten, A. (2017). The development of selective copying: Children's learning from an expert versus their mother. Child Development, 88(6), 2026���2042. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12711
  32. Mahowald, K., James, A., Futrell, R., & Gibson, E. (2016). A meta���analysis of syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 5���27.
  33. Martel, C., Rathje, S., Clark, C. J., Pennycook, G., Van Bavel, J. J., Rand, D., & van der Linden, S. (2023). On the efficacy of accuracy prompts across partisan lines: An adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 35(4), 435���450.
  34. Mascaro, O., & Sperber, D. (2009). The moral, epistemic, and mindreading components of children's vigilance towards deception. Cognition, 112(3), 367���380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.012
  35. McPherson, A. C., Gofine, M. L., & Stinson, J. (2014). Seeing is believing a mixed methods study exploring the quality and perceived trustworthiness of online information about chronic conditions aimed at children and young people. Health Communication, 29(5), 473���482.
  36. Miller, C., Bartlett, J., & Programme, E. (2012). Journal of information literacy ���digital fluency���: Towards young people's critical use of the internet. The Journal of Information Literacy, 6(2). http://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/JIL/article/view/
  37. National Literacy Trust. (2018). Fake news and critical literacy. https://nlt.cdn.ngo/media/documents/Fake_news_and_critical_literacy_���_final_report.pdf
  38. Ofcom. (2023a). Adults media literacy tracker. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research���and���data/data/statistics/2024/adults���media���literacy���tracker/adults���media���literacy���tracker���2023���technical���report?v=330751
  39. Ofcom. (2023b). Children's media use and attitudes. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/research���and���data/media���literacy���research/children/childrens���media���use���and���attitudes���2023/childrens���media���use���and���attitudes���report���2023.pdf?v=329412
  40. Osmundsen, M., Bor, A., Bjerregaard Vahlstrup, P., Bechmann, A., & Petersen, M. B. (2021). Partisan polarization is the primary psychological motivation behind political fake news sharing on twitter. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 999���1015.
  41. Paris, S. G., & Winograd, P. (1990). Promoting metacognition and motivation of exceptional children. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 7���15.
  42. Pasquini, E. S., Corriveau, K. H., Koenig, M., & Harris, P. L. (2007). Preschoolers monitor the relative accuracy of informants. Developmental Psychology, 43(5), 1216���1226.
  43. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, 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, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022a). Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nature Communications, 13, 2333. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467���022���30073���5
  45. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022b). Nudging social media toward accuracy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 152���164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221092342
  46. Porsch, T., & Bromme, R. (2010). Which science disciplines are pertinent? ���Impact of epistemological beliefs on students' choices. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the Disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 2010)���Volume 1, Full Papers (pp. 636���642). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
  47. Roozenbeek, J., Freeman, A. L. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021). How accurate are accuracy���nudge interventions? A preregistered direct replication of Pennycook et al. (2020). Psychological Science, 32(7), 1169���1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211024535
  48. Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van de Linden, S. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID���19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7, 201199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199
  49. Schneider, W. (2008). The development of metacognitive knowledge in children and adolescents: Major trends and implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2, 114���121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751���228X.2008.00041.x
  50. Silverstein, M. (1972). Linguistic theory: Syntax, semantics, pragmatics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 1, 349���382.
  51. Singer, L. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2017). Reading across mediums: Effects of reading digital and print texts on comprehension and calibration. Journal of Experimental Education, 85(1), 155���172. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2016.1143794
  52. Sperber, D., Cl��ment, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359���393.
  53. Str��ms��, H. I., Br��ten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176���203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
  54. Sung, Y. T., Wu, M. D., Chen, C. K., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Examining the online reading behavior and performance of fifth���graders: Evidence from eye���movement data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 665. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00665
  55. Teasley, S. D. (1995). The role of talk in children's peer collaborations. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 207���220.
  56. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124���1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  57. W��stlund, E. (2007). Experimental studies of human���computer interaction: Working memory and mental workload in complex cognition. Department of Psychology, Gothenberg University.
  58. Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., & Ziv, N. (2020). Educating for misunderstanding: How approaches to teaching digital literacy make students susceptible to scammers, rogues, bad actors and hate mongers (Working Paper No. A���21322). Stanford History Education Group. Retrieved March, 2, 2021, from https://purl.stanford.edu/mf412bt5333
  59. Wineburg, S., & Mcgrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. Teachers College Record, 121(11), 1���40.
  60. Winograd, P., & Johnston, P. (1982). Comprehension monitoring and the error detection paradigm. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1, 61���76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862968209547435
  61. Zhang, M. (2013). Supporting middle school students' online reading of scientific resources: Moving beyond cursory, fragmented, and opportunistic reading. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 138���152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365���2729.2012.00478.x
  62. Zimmer���Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2006). Autonomy development during adolescence. In Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 174���204). Wiley.

Grants

  1. /Economic and Social Research Council
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0selectivetrustadolescentssemanticerrorsonlinetypographicalepistemicvigilancesourcescorestowardssourcesageolderyoungerdecisionsDevelopmentinformationcrucialcontextwidespread'informationpollution'ChildrendemonstratedmistrustwebpagesusedtaskinvestigatewhetherpatternchangesadolescenceParticipantsreadtwopairsscientifictopicspaircontainingwebpageeitheraskednovelfactualquestionsparticipantsdrewanswersindicatesdegreeanticipatedgroupsignificantlypredictedN���=���22216-20���yearsM���=���18���yearsreceivinghigherN���=���15311-16���yearsM���=���137���yearseffectpresentconditionsparticularlypronouncedAdditionallypre-exposureaccuracypromptsignificantfactordemonstratinglimitationsutilityprimecomplextheorizemaysalienceadolescents'whereasplaceemphasisvisualunderstandingcredibilityTrustissues:Adolescents'behaviour

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.