ArticleNature human behaviour2024
Exposure to detectable inaccuracies makes children more diligent fact-checkers of novel claims.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reply to: Corrections are effective for science misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- The Quest for Truth: Experimenter Identity Impacts Children's Response to Surprising Information.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
- Misinformation and children's fact-checking.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
How do children decide when to believe a claim? Here we show that children fact-check claims more and are better able to catch misinformation when they have been exposed to detectable inaccuracies. In two experiments (N = 122), 4-7-year-old children exposed to falsity (as opposed to all true information) sampled more evidence before verifying a test claim in a novel domain. Children's evidentiary standards were graded: fact-checking increased with higher proportions of false statements heard during exposure. A simulation suggests that children's behaviour is adaptive, because increased fact-checking in more dubious environments supports the discovery of potential misinformation. Importantly, children were least diligent at fact-checking a new claim when all prior information was true, suggesting that sanitizing children's informational environments may inadvertently dampen their natural scepticism. Instead, these findings support the counterintuitive possibility that exposing children to some nonsense may scaffold vigilance towards more subtle misinformation in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39390098What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.