Summary: A new study reports that 41% of teenagers struggle to distinguish between real and fake health-related news.
Source: Frontiers
New research shows that many teenagers find it difficult to distinguish between accurate and misleading health messages online.
In the study, only 48% of participants judged accurate, neutrally worded health messages to be more trustworthy than clearly fake ones. Forty-one percent rated fake and true neutral messages as equally trustworthy, while 11% found true neutral health messages less trustworthy than fake ones. These findings point to a substantial gap in adolescents’ ability to evaluate health information and underline the need for better education in health and media literacy.
Health misinformation and disinformation are serious public health challenges. The rise of social media has increased the circulation of incomplete, inaccurate, and sometimes harmful health content. Exposure to false health information can lead people—especially young people—to make risky or misguided health decisions and can erode trust in medical professionals and public health authorities.
“There has been an explosion of misinformation in the area of health during the Covid-19 pandemic,” said principal investigator Dr Radomír Masaryk of Comenius University.
Most previous research on message credibility has focused on adults. Masaryk and colleagues set out to determine whether adolescents, as frequent internet users, are equipped to handle the volume of health-related misinformation they encounter online.
“Because adolescents are often described as ‘digital natives,’ we tend to assume they already know how to approach and evaluate online information, but our results suggest the opposite,” Masaryk commented.
The researchers found that about 41% of teenagers could not reliably tell the difference between true and fake online medical content. Notably, many adolescents did not interpret poor editorial quality—such as awkward wording or grammatical errors—as a sign that a message was less trustworthy.
These findings were published in Frontiers in Psychology.
Teenagers and the media
Adolescents are a high-risk group for encountering misleading health news. As a highly connected demographic—approximately 71% of young people worldwide use the internet—they are regularly exposed to a mix of reliable and unreliable health information.
Research has long shown that media portrayals can influence teen behavior: positive depictions of risky activities, such as smoking or heavy drinking, can increase the likelihood of imitation. Conversely, accurate online health information that aligns with professional advice can encourage healthier behaviors, better self-care, and greater adherence to treatment.
When judging online content, teenagers often rely on surface features of a site—its layout, language, and perceived authority. Websites that resemble official organizations or trusted brands, or that use professional-sounding language, are typically considered more credible.
Earlier work with adolescents identified five editorial features that tend to reduce perceived credibility: the use of superlatives, clickbait headlines, grammar mistakes, appeals to authority, and boldface type. Building on that research, Masaryk and his team manipulated both content and format to test how these editorial elements affect trust among adolescents.
The study presented 300 secondary school students, aged 16 to 19 (mean age 17.26, SD = 1.04; 66.3% female), with seven short messages about the health benefits of various fruits and vegetables. The messages fell into three categories: clearly fake, true but neutral, and true with editorial elements (superlatives, clickbait, grammar errors, appeals to authority, or boldface). Participants rated each message’s trustworthiness.
Overall, adolescents could distinguish blatantly false health claims from true ones. However, when true messages were tweaked with editorial elements, adolescents typically rated them as similarly trustworthy to neutral true messages—except when a clickbait headline was used. In that case, the message was judged significantly less trustworthy than other true messages. Specifically, 48% of respondents trusted true neutral messages more than fake ones, 41% viewed fake and true neutral messages as equally believable, and 11% distrusted true neutral messages in favor of fake ones.
Clickbait is less convincing
“To place trust in a health message, people need to identify whether it is true or fake,” Masaryk explained.
The study showed that adolescents did not reliably use editorial cues—such as grammar, superlatives, appeals to authority, or bold type—as indicators of lower quality. The clear exception was clickbait: headlines that leaned toward sensationalism reduced perceived credibility.
Given these results, the authors recommend strengthening training for adolescents to recognize editorial signals of low-quality content and to evaluate health information more critically. They advocate for increased emphasis on health literacy, media literacy, analytical thinking, and scientific reasoning in educational programs.
“Analytical thinking and scientific reasoning are skills that help distinguish false from true health messages,” Masaryk concluded.
About this psychology research news
Author: Suzanna Burgelman
Source: Frontiers
Contact: Suzanna Burgelman – Frontiers
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Open access.
“Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?” by Radomír Masaryk et al. Frontiers in Psychology
Abstract
Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages?
Adolescents regularly search for health information online, but much of what they find is low quality and sometimes potentially harmful. Identifying the credibility of online health messages is crucial for shaping healthy attitudes and behaviors.
This study examined how different editorial approaches affect adolescents’ perceptions of message credibility and whether changes in format or content alter trust. The research used seven short messages about the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, varying by authenticity and editorial style.
The sample included 300 secondary school students (mean age 17.26, SD = 1.04; 66.3% female). Participants rated the trustworthiness of each message, and the researchers calculated sensitivity as the difference in trustworthiness ratings between fake and true neutral messages. Analyses also controlled for scientific reasoning, cognitive reflection, and media literacy.
Adolescents were able to distinguish overtly fake health claims from true ones. True messages with editorial modifications were generally judged as equally trustworthy to neutral true messages, with the exception of clickbait headlines, which reduced perceived credibility. These findings held after accounting for scientific reasoning, analytical thinking, and media literacy. The authors conclude that adolescents would benefit from focused training to recognize and evaluate editorial elements characteristic of low-quality health content.