The fight against fake news: know the dif­fer­ence between in­form­a­tion and in­ten­tion

It's a bit of a paradox:

We call young people digital natives. They’ve grown up with screens in their hands and live much of their lives on social media. And yet, it’s Generation Z that is most vulnerable to one of today’s biggest threats to democracy: misinformation.

Research reveals another paradox:

Young people in Generation Z know they’re not good at spotting fake news. But self-awareness doesn’t protect them. They still perform the worst in practice compared to older generations, who believe they’re better than they actually are at distinguishing between true and false.

These insights are shared by CBS researcher Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg. She refers to MIST – short for Misinformation Susceptibility Test – which forms the basis for identifying Generation Z as the most vulnerable to misinformation. The study was conducted by researchers at the University of Cambridge, and Traberg herself researches how our digital and social lives influence our behavior and attitudes.

“When we talk about how harmful misinformation is, it doesn’t matter whether people believe it or not. What matters is whether it affects thoughts and actions, because that can harm both yourself and others,” she says.

The difference between information and intention

To explain the generational differences, Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg refers to a series of studies in misinformation research.

First of all, Generation Z gets their news predominantly from social media—more so than older generations.

“Young people don’t just get most of their news from social media; they also spend the most time there. That means they’re more exposed to false information—both intentionally, when they actively seek out news, and unintentionally, when they’re simply scrolling through their feed. The brain can’t process all that information, which makes it harder to assess the truth of each individual story,” she explains.

The education system is another factor:

“Generation Z, aged 12 to 28, is part of an educational landscape that doesn’t match the way we process information today on social media.”

According to Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg, older generations’ education is better aligned with the news landscape they’re part of where assessing the credibility of a source is key.

“That fits well with the traditional media landscape, where large news agencies and state institutions produce the news. But today, young people receive information about politics and health from influencers who may have no real background knowledge or credibility on the topics they’re discussing. The social structure of sharing and resharing information is also not sufficiently addressed in the curriculum,” she says.

And this is where it becomes crucial to learn the difference between information and intention. Assessing information belongs to the traditional news model. Assessing intention is highly relevant on platforms like social media.

“When we assess information, we look at whether it sounds right. Are the arguments solid? Does it align with other information we’ve received? But assessing intentions can be much harder. It’s challenging when you don’t know the people you’re exposed to online. Much of it is also about social performance,” she explains.

There can be many reasons for sharing something on social media.
Young people don’t just share content because it reflects reality. They also share it because they want to be associated with the information. Sometimes it’s about signaling that they belong to a group that shares a particular type of content. Other times, it’s about being unique - sharing something new that others haven’t posted yet.

“Research shows that young people are more sensitive to likes. A like triggers increased activity in the brain area associated with reward. And because young people are more sensitive to these processes, it’s even more important to teach them why they tend to believe things online more readily when they receive a lot of likes. You can compare it to how schools teach students about how sugar affects blood sugar levels. If you can learn about that process, you can also learn about what happens in your body when you're on social media,” says Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg.

Emotions manipulate

But what about the part of Generation Z that has left primary and secondary school? How do we reach them with information about fake news?

“They’re harder to reach once they’re no longer part of a structured educational system. On one hand, it’s about the platforms themselves. If we change how information is shared and how algorithms operate, we’ll solve part of the problem. But that’s also the hardest part -getting the platform owners to engage. Their incentive to change is low, because what would be beneficial to change is also what keeps us hooked on the platforms. That’s why it’s crucial to learn the manipulation techniques used in misinformation,” explains Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg.

She says that many researchers are currently developing games for young people that teach them how they’re being manipulated.

“Even though young people may not care whether something is true or false, they definitely don’t want to be manipulated.”

One technique used to manipulate is presenting us with information that triggers our emotions because it distracts us and makes us forget to assess whether the information is true.

Seeing the beam in your own eye

One of the conclusions from Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg’s own research is that we’re good at spotting when others are swept away by the majority on social media but we consistently underestimate how susceptible we are ourselves.

“Because it’s easier to point out flaws in others than to recognize that they exist in ourselves.”

According to Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg, the way forward is to become aware of this tendency. That’s why it’s a point she always emphasizes during lectures and other presentations of her research.

“There’s also research from the UK and the US showing that young people, even those younger than Generation Z, know they should consider source credibility and think analytically, but that doesn’t reflect in their behavior. Often, they judge information based on whether it feels right and whether a website looks cool. We need to teach them that it’s become much easier to make something look authentic and impressive, without it actually being true,” she suggests.

AI is a double-edged sword

When assessing the future of our ability to distinguish between true and false online, Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg points to AI. And here, AI is a double-edged sword:

“On one hand, misinformation can be created on a massive scale thanks to AI and made more convincing because it can be tailored to different population groups. At the same time, there’s huge potential in using AI to reach young people through the kinds of games I mentioned earlier. AI can also be used to assess the credibility of information.”

She also sees a trend among young people becoming more aware of not using their phones excessively and thereby being exposed to less misinformation.

“I’ve spoken to young people who say that the phone in their parents’ hands is a bit like the cigarette decades ago. Cigarettes were in every photo, because people smoked in the car and even at the changing table. It’s similar with phones today for some generations—they’re always present. But parts of the younger generation are trying to break away from that. We’re also talking about screen-free zones, and that helps us move away from the constant bombardment of information. And that’s important. Because when you’ve been scrolling for hours and seen 200 headlines, you’re not in a state to evaluate them. You may not have clicked on all of them, but they still leave an imprint,” she says, offering one final thought-provoking example:

“Think about how often people refer to something but they can’t quite remember where they read it. Still, it sticks in their minds as if it were true and trustworthy.”