The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Students' credibility criteria for evaluating scientific information: The case of climate change on social media
Abstract
The rise of social media platforms and the subsequent lack of traditional gatekeeping mechanisms contribute to the multiplied spread of scientific misinformation. Particularly in these new media spaces, there is a rising need for science education in fostering a science media literacy that enables students to evaluate the credibility of scientific information. A key determinant of a successful credibility evaluation is the effectiveness of the criteria students apply in this process. However, research suggests that existing credibility criteria are often not integrated into students' actual social media evaluation behavior. This hints to a lack of transferability of the existing criteria. As a consequence, knowledge about how learners evaluate credibility in social media is a first step in closing this gap. In the present study, we report results from six focus groups with 21 10th‐grade students (M = 15 years, 57% female, 38% male, 5% nonbinary) about their usage of different credibility criteria in the case of social media posts about climate change. The data were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and as a first step assigned to established credibility dimensions of content (what?) and source‐related criteria (who?). Additionally, given the complexity of social media, we also added a composition‐based category (how?). In a second analysis step, we adapted our subcategories to the recently proposed credibility heuristic by Osborne and Pimentel. The findings suggest that students generally take criteria from all three heuristic credibility dimensions into account and combine different criteria when evaluating the credibility of scientific information in social media. Based on the application of the credibility criteria to the heuristic, implications for the development of teaching materials for fostering science media literacy are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This finding aligns with Kresin et al. [59], who found that when evaluating scientific information on social media, participants cited familiarity with the source as a primary criterion for credibility.”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as Kresin et al. [59]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.
Haidt, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.4.814 · Cited by 8,048
Social and Heuristic Approaches to Credibility Evaluation Online
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x · Cited by 1,394
Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics
Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012 · Cited by 1,000
A Meta-Analysis of Research on Inoculation Theory
Banas, J. A., & Rains, S. A. (2010) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637751003758193 · Cited by 510
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2019) · Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education · doi:10.1177/016146811912101102 · Cited by 394
Prominence-interpretation theory: explaining how people assess credibility online
Fogg, B. J. (2003) · CHI '03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '03 · doi:10.1145/765891.765951 · Cited by 335
Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21575 · Cited by 303
Lateral reading on the open Internet: A district-wide field study in high school government classes.
Wineburg, S., Breakstone, J., McGrew, S., Smith, M. D., & Ortega, T. (2022) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000740 · Cited by 165
Science, misinformation, and the role of education
Osborne, J., & Pimentel, D. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abq8093 · Cited by 115
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- Alexander J. E., 1999, Web wisdom: How to evaluate and create information quality on the web
- 10.1525/abt.2012.74.9.13 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s11191-021-00257-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3389/fcomm.2019.00036 · DOI
- Alvarado O. &Waern A.(2018). Towards algorithmic experience.Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173860 · DOI
- 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.369 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-030-14610-8_5 · DOI
- 10.1177/0340035221991564 · DOI
- 10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w · DOI
- Bromme R., 2014, Pädagogische PsychologieKienhues, Dorothe, 55
- 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01989 · DOI
- 10.1080/15456870.2015.972282 · DOI
- 10.3102/0013189X20940683 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0963662520981729 · DOI
- 10.1080/13546783.2022.2041095 · DOI
- Davis M. &Stark A.(2001).Conflict of interest in the professions. · DOI
- 10.1108/EJM-03-2017-0182 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1164 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0231387 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 · DOI · Paper page
- Gigerenzer G., 1999, Simple heuristics that make us smart19, 3
- 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.031 · DOI
- 10.1037/tmb0000005 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199856169.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1177/0165551511400958 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101104 · DOI
- 10.5860/crl.75.4.442 · DOI
- 10.1080/00913367.2005.10639191 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.lisr.2019.100967 · DOI
- 10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.3390/cli7100122 · DOI
- 10.1023/A:1008642510402 · DOI
- 10.1037/h0048344 · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03186.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/asi.20672 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s10763-010-9206-7 · DOI
- O'Keefe D. J., 2015, Persuasion: Theory and research
- 10.1002/sce.21790 · DOI
- 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1486871 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-658-22095-2 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dabran-Zivan, S., Klein-Avraham, I., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345300 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Kresin, S., Kremer, K., & Büssing, A. G.
- Affiliations
- Group of Biology Education, Institute for Science Education Leibniz University Hannover Germany
- Institute for Biology Education Justus Liebig University Giessen Germany
- Group of Biology Education, Institute for Science Education Technische Universität Braunschweig Braunschweig Germany
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-01-19
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 762-791
- ISSN
- 0036-8326
- 1098-237X
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 9
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review