Discussing Credibility and Corroboration: Students’ Reasoning About Digital Sources and Claims During Lateral Reading Lessons

Gresham's Law of Political Communication: How Citizens Respond to Conflicting Information

Although citizens are often exposed to conflicting communications from political elites, few studies examine the effects of conflicting information on the quality of citizens’ decisions. Thus, I conduct experiments in which subjects are exposed to conflicting information before making decisions that affect their future welfare. The results suggest that a version of Gresham's Law operates in the context of political communication. When a credible source of information suggests the welfare-improving choice and a less credible source simultaneously suggests a choice that will make subjects worse off, subjects make worse decisions than when only the credible source is available. This occurs because many subjects base their decisions upon the less credible source or forgo participation. This occurs mostly among unsophisticated subjects, who are more easily led astray. These findings reveal important limits to the effectiveness of credible information sources and suggest how political campaigns might strategically use conflicting information to their benefit.

There is an ongoing discussion on the necessity of implementing disclosures for digitally manipulated pictures within the branded content of social media influencers (SMIs). To address this, we conducted two online survey-based between-subjects experiments to assess the effectiveness of digital manipulation disclosures used on Instagram by an SMI. In the first study (N = 99), we examined how a visual prominent disclosure placed directly on the sponsored posts of an SMI, mediated by the recognition of digital manipulation and the perceived authenticity of the SMI, influenced participants’ intentions toward the SMI, their brand attitude, and their likelihood in engaging in electronic Word-of-Mouth. In the second study (N = 155), we manipulated three conditions: the absence of digital manipulation, the presence of digital manipulation without disclosure, and the presence of digital manipulation with disclosure. We investigated the effects of digital manipulation on the perceived credibility of the SMI and on brand related factors, mediated by the recognition of digital manipulation. Moreover, we explored the moderating effects of product involvement on the relationship between digital manipulation recognition and source credibility. Recognizing digital manipulation has no effects on the perceived authenticity of the SMI. Among social media users with high levels of product involvement who can recognize the digital manipulation, the perceived credibility of the SMI tends to be lower. The research holds both theoretical and practical implications for the field of influencer marketing and disclosure practices.

Background Access to accurate health information is crucial. Despite the abundance of information online, sorting through it can be overwhelming, especially with the spread of misinformation. This poses a threat to public health and challenges health literacy. Efforts to combat misinformation are struggling due to the rapid growth of available information. We need complementary strategies, such as promoting trustworthy information sources. An initiative by Bertelsmann Stiftung, aims to counter misinformation by promoting health information from credible sources. Methods In 2021, the U.S. National Academy of Medicine outlined principles for identifying credible health information sources, endorsed globally by the WHO and embraced by the social media industry. However, these principles lack operationalization, leaving indicators for credibility undefined. To address this gap, Bertelsmann Stiftung, in collaboration with German experts, conducted workshops in 2023 to draft evaluation criteria. Their ongoing work, alongside initiatives by the Careum Foundation and Gesundheit Österreich GmbH will be presented. Results The criteria focus on structure (e.g., the expertise of providers) and process (e.g., methods for identifying relevant evidence) rather than outcome (i.e., the quality of each piece of information), and are based on the domains science-basis, transparency and legitimacy. Mandatory and complementary criteria allow a two-step approach to identify health information providers of good quality (meeting all mandatory criteria) and excellent quality (meeting all criteria). Conclusions These criteria build the basis of the establishment of an international certification system and represent a crucial measure to combat misinformation and promote population health literacy. Various international partners and social platforms have already reached a strong consensus on the relevance of the project goals and expressed their willingness to deepen their efforts in this regard.

We are living in a knowledge society, which is dominated by information in its most diverse formats. Internet and digital information sources have provided us with wealth of information in abundance. Information has gained importance in every sector of societies and health sector is not an exceptionand health professionals are increasingly finding that they have more information available than they can handle with confidence in their busy time schedules and the hardest task now is to actually locate the information required from the flood of information received. Major problem appears to be the difficulty of identifying and filtering the most useful, accurate and credible sources while searching online for health information. for conducting their activities related to human care, academic and research pursuits.

Scholarly publishing and publication literacy has always been a realm of knowledge that is absolutely essential for everyone who engages in education. This starts at the preschool level when youngsters are first introduced to the idea that there is a difference between what can be taken to be “true” and what is safely assumed to be “false.” Once students start taking on the challenge of writing “term papers,” part of the learning process is how to select reliable and trustworthy sources of information. Learning to discern the worth of sources multiplies the more advanced and sophisticated the student becomes. Now, however, everyone involved in academia faces new challenges, even those of us who have achieved what might be called “academic standing”—graduate students and the faculty who supervise graduate studies. The proliferation of information on the World Wide Web means that we need to be familiar with cues that indicate possible flaws in Internet sources, and many academic units have developed guidelines to teach students how to determine if a web source contains reliable and trustworthy information. With the internet came open access publishing, which resulted in a tsunami of challenges for those who seek trustworthy scholarly sources—a challenge that articles in Nurse Author & Editor have addressed repeatedly (INANE “Predatory Publishing Practices” Collaborative, 1; Nicoll & Chinn, 3; Owens, 5). Part of this has to do with simply shifting from print literacy to digital literacy (Nicoll & Chinn, 4). Most of the attention so far has been focused on predatory publishing, and how to avoid the trap of publishing your work in journals produced by dishonest publishers. However, it is also necessary to be wary of the sources you cite, those that you rely on as a basis for the development of your own ideas. This requires being informed about the pitfalls of predatory or dishonest publishing, but taking a close look at any source, particularly online sources, to determine if it can be trusted as a reliable source is essential in developing your own scholarship. Print publication provided, and still provides, certain built-in barriers to deceptive practices and poor quality, the main one being the cost of publication and distribution of print media. Those of us who grew up learning print literacy acquired an almost automatic “trust” of anything published, just because it was published on paper. Print literacy did call for a measure of skepticism that questioned the credentials of authors, the reputation of the publisher or the journal, cues for any indication of a conflict of interest that might bias what was published, or reporting that fell short in terms of method or logic. But mostly, consumers of print have tended to believe that if something was published, it has a measure of credibility and the standards of skepticism may be ignored, or only “lightly” applied. As those involved in higher education migrated to the realm of online information, the tendency to trust what has been published has spilled over. Most people recognize that the kind of traditional skepticism related to print media is still called for, but there remain huge gaps in the extent to which people exercise even the traditional literacy skills of skepticism. Further, they either knowingly or unknowingly lack essential online literacy skills. Even more alarming, all too often I encounter someone who expresses a casual refusal to recognize that the trustworthiness of any source are multiplied exponentially when it comes to sources available online. Perhaps when an article appears online to download as a portable document file (PDF), it acquires an aura of “print” credibility! The fact is that being published in print does not guarantee credibility, and most people who are involved in academic careers know this to be the case despite a general tendency to trust print sources. Most people also recognize that the credibility of information published online calls for a heightened level of skepticism, but many people who consume online information related to their scholarship are still struggling with how to know the difference between what is credible and what is not. It is foolhardy to ignore this challenge, and to ignore the serious threat to scholarly integrity that exists every time anyone fails to recognize the flaws in any published work—print or digital. Most students and faculty are eager to avoid the pitfall of failing to discern that which is credible, and certainly no one wants to believe that they can be drawn into a trap involving less-than-credible sources. However, my interactions with students and faculty in many different contexts reveal a persistent lack of online literacy skills and even surprise at the extent of the challenge. The following sections describe three different types of sources you are likely to find online, the kinds of cues to look for in identifying their flaws, and what to do with the information you find. In this situation you do not have to look far—you can plainly see the signs and symptoms of the problem. This kind of source seems all too obvious, with the literacy standards you would use for any print source being called on! But amazingly, I have seen this kind of source cited or mentioned as possibly worthwhile. You stumble upon an article that is related to your topic, with an intriguing title. The first clue is that you stumbled on this, perhaps even found it as a source someone else cited. But even if you think the “stumble” is not a problem, it does not take long to detect that there are problems. There are a few versions of this kind of source: Typically, if you look at the journal in which the article is cited, it will be one that is published in a dishonest or predatory journal. But for articles that are this obvious, you can safely assume that no credible journal would publish such an article (see the next section for more on assessing the publication itself). What to do with the obvious? Do not cite, and do not recommend to anyone else! The only good reason to keep the item around is to use it as a teaching tool, that is as an example of how easy it is to detect this kind of source. These are sources that are not quite so obvious—you have to palpate or perhaps even do a big of sleuthing—to determine if it is a credible source. You might detect a few issues with the writing, such as passages or sections that do not quite make sense, but overall, you find the ideas worthwhile, although perhaps poorly expressed but a bit novel but worth considering. In this case, what are your next best steps? This is a case you will definitely want to check the publisher of the journal to determine if it is a credible journal. If you go to the journal website, you are likely to find “in plain sight” kinds of cues that should put you on alert. Some of the most common are poor English, lack of adequate information about the journal's peer review process, missing (or unknown) editors or editorial advisory board members, sketchy guidelines for authors, inconsistent prior publication in the journal, and missing information about archiving of previously published works (Laine & Winker, 2). If in doubt, consult your librarian! Examine the references that the authors of the article cite. If you detect any discrepancies, if the citations are outdated, or if you know of much better sources related to this topic, then you may have a clue that this article is not itself a good source. Here is an example from a 2011 article a student recently presented for discussion. This kind of assessment of the sources cited uncovers an inadequacy in the 2011 article that might occur even in a credible source. However, given the fact that we also determined that the article was published in a predatory journal, this evidence adds to the conclusion that this is not a credible source despite the fact that the ideas in the article are at least plausible. What to do with the palpable? If the article is published in a journal that is not credible, set it aside and do not use it. If there are truly ideas worth considering, search further to find credible sources that explore these ideas, and use them as your sources instead. These are articles that are truly borderline—they are well written, contain good ideas that are sound with good foundations. But the “itch” article appears in a journal that is published by a predatory or dishonest publisher, perhaps one that seems a bit “borderline.” You have made a thorough assessment of the quality of the article, the sources cited in the article, and determined that based on the article content, it is credible. You have confidence in the author, whose credentials and expertise can be verified. But you have also confirmed that the publisher of the journal lacks credibility as a publisher, and in examining other articles published in the journal, few measure up to the quality of this article. This may be a case of an article that had already been submitted to at least one credible journal, and for some reason the author (probably unknowingly) turned to the predatory journal for publication. What to do with the itch? Scratch it a bit, but at this time my best advice is to set this article aside and do not cite it. Find other works by this author that might be suitable sources to cite, or contact the author to find out more about their work. You might even opt to cite information from the author as personal correspondence. The bottom line is that you should not cite the predatory journal, as doing so provides legitimacy to the journal and publisher, which in turn contributes to the problem that is the crux of this entire discussion. In summary, I have explained extending your online literacy skills to develop the ability to vet each and every source you cite in your own work. This might seem like a mammoth challenge at first, but the more you use these skills, the better your scholarship will be, and the less daunting the task becomes. Further, using these skills to cite only legitimate, credible sources helps to ensure the rigor of the knowledge base for nursing, and to stop the erosion that is occurring because of predatory publishing practices in the discipline. Peggy Chinn, RN, PhD, FAAN is Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Nursing Science, author of a few books, and manager or co-manager of several websites/blogs, including INANE. She is an Author-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

Patients with rare illnesses may use medication information sources that are appreciably different from those used by patients with more common illnesses. This article's purpose is to describe vasculitis patients' most frequently used medication information sources, determine which sources patients perceive as credible, and explore gender differences in source use and perceived credibility. Using an online questionnaire, patients (n = 232) indicated how often they obtained medication information from 12 sources during the previous year and rated the credibility of 6 sources. The authors used multivariate analysis of covariance and follow-up contrasts to test for gender differences in source use and conducted t tests to compare patients' perceived credibility ratings. Patients used physicians and the Internet most often to obtain medication information and rated them as the most credible sources. Male patients used their spouse/partner more often and rated them as more credible than did female patients. Female patients were more likely to use medication package inserts and the Internet and were less likely to use nurses than were male patients. There appear to be similarities and differences between the information-seeking behaviors of vasculitis patients and other patient populations. Because male patients view their spouse/partner as a credible information source, providers may want to involve the spouse/partner in prescription decision making.

The increasing role of the Internet enables the spread of knowledge-based consumption; consumers are turning to their social environment to exchange information and experiences with products either through personal contacts or by contacting others on the Internet. Several former studies analyzed the influencing role of experience-based communication on a variety of products but in the case of heating appliances the scientific literature is lacking. The goal of the study is to reveal the influence of experience in the various stages of the purchase process and to identify the credible information sources that consumers consult while making a decision. A two-step exploratory research was conducted in 2013 with homeowners in Hungary on the residential heat market. Consumers were found be active decision-makers and deliberately planned the purchase of heating products. The influencing role of experience prevails not only in the consumers’ personal experience but also in the experience of other users they interact with and in the experience of professionals they consult. Personal experience starts at the early age as respondents’ recall childhood memories with heating, which influences the consumers’ expectations in the early stage of the purchase process. The experience of other users prevails along the whole purchase process through credible sources and the experience of professionals influences mainly the information search and validation phase of the purchase process. Consumers consult other users (strong and weak social sources) personally or via online sources by the final decision rather than turning to the installer.

The claim that science education is useful for people’s everyday engagement with science is often repeated but has little evidence. In an attempt to empirically test this shared assumption, we examined whether the level of science education people received predicted indicators of science-informed decision-making: adherence to experts’ recommendations, using science to justify science-related decisions, and relying on credible sources. Real-life COVID-19 dilemmas were used to examine this question in three studies: Study I involved a convenience sample of sports fans (n = 412); Study II involved a representative sample of the general population (n = 500), and Study III involved a sample of a religious minority group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (n = 800) who do not receive mandatory level science education. In the three studies, science education did not predict adherence to social distancing guidelines, the use of science and health-related reasoning to justify one’s stance, or, for the most part, the ability of participants to choose credible information sources. Scientific knowledge played a role in predicting adherence to social distancing guidelines; however, this relationship disappeared when other commitments dominated. This study provides a starting point for a quantitative empirical research approach for testing the long-term transferability of science education to the personal lives of non-scientists.

Despite the advancement of technology in the internet age, many college students lack the information and communication technology (ICT) literacy skills like evaluating which is necessary to navigate and using information available at present. Evaluating the quality of information sources encompasses students’ ability to determine relevance, accuracy, and overall credibility of sources and information. The quality of information found online is extremely variable because anyone can post data on the internet, and not all online sources are equally reliable, valuable, or accurate. From a study conducted on diploma students’ assignments using rubric at an international university in Kuala Lumpur, a problem in digital information evaluation skills and lack of ability in using evaluation criteria, including authority, accuracy, currency, objectivity, and coverage on digital information and sources among diploma students had been discovered. The future work of this study will be the use of mobile devices in collaborative and interactive learning to improve digital information evaluation skills among diploma students. This approach does not only improve the students’ learning attitude, but also enhances the effectiveness of learning.

This paper aims to analyse the practice of Qur’an Journaling as a new tool that serves as a medium for learning tafsīr and disseminating religious content among the younger generation. This topic is worth reviewing due to the observed transformation of religious authority through social media, which has shifted traditional figures such as scholars and clerics to digital influencers, significantly impacting how audiences engage with interpretations. This descriptive-analytical study sources its data from online media, specifically Qur’an journaling content posted by the Instagram account @aisharizqy, making this research a form of virtual ethnography. Roger Fidler’s media morphosis approach is used to identify three critical concepts: co-evolution, convergence, and complexity. This approach is employed to explore further the process of media shifts concerning tafsīr references over time. The findings indicate that Qur’an Journaling is a manifestation of the transformation of the school (madrasah) of tafsīr, combining traditional religious practices with modern technology. Despite the novelty in the form of communicators and media, this practice remains rooted in existing oral and written traditions. Additionally, social media as an online community plays a role in reinforcing an individual’s religious identity through virtual religious symbols. These findings also indicate a contestation and shift in how religious authority is constructed and recognized in the digital era. This shift in authority has implications for the interpretation and citation of tafsīr among Muslims, who rely more on digital sources and social media. This transformation also reflects the emergence of a new phase in tafsīr learning that requires a critical evaluation of the validity and credibility of digital sources in the contemporary era.

PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a concurrent outbreak of false information online. Debunking false information about a health crisis is critical as misinformation can trigger protests or panic, which necessitates a better understanding of it. This exploratory study examined the effects of debunking messages on a COVID-19-related public chat on WhatsApp in Singapore.Design/methodology/approachTo understand the effects of debunking messages about COVID-19 on WhatsApp conversations, the following was studied. The relationship between source credibility (i.e. characteristics of a communicator that affect the receiver's acceptance of the message) of different debunking message types and their effects on the length of the conversation, sentiments towards various aspects of a crisis, and the information distortions in a message thread were studied. Deep learning techniques, knowledge graphs (KG), and content analyses were used to perform aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) of the messages and measure information distortion.FindingsDebunking messages with higher source credibility (e.g. providing evidence from authoritative sources like health authorities) help close a discussion thread earlier. Shifts in sentiments towards some aspects of the crisis highlight the value of ABSA in monitoring the effectiveness of debunking messages. Finally, debunking messages with lower source credibility (e.g. stating that the information is false without any substantiation) are likely to increase information distortion in conversation threads.Originality/valueThe study supports the importance of source credibility in debunking and an ABSA approach in analysing the effect of debunking messages during a health crisis, which have practical value for public agencies during a health crisis. Studying differences in the source credibility of debunking messages on WhatsApp is a novel shift from the existing approaches. Additionally, a novel approach to measuring information distortion using KGs was used to shed insights on how debunking can reduce information distortions.

PurposeDuring Covid-19 pandemic, Millennials, which are familiar with the Internet, may contribute in facing the pandemic by consistently sharing healthy food information. Thus, it is important to improve Millennials online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic. This research aims to examine the simultaneous effects of e-health literacy, knowledge of the digital health communication media (DHCM) use, facilitating conditions, information quality and source credibility on Millennials' online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic.Design/methodology/approachA survey was performed to collect the data. The respondents of the survey are 205 DHCM millennial users who lived in Tangerang Regency and Tangerang City, Indonesia. This research performed a multiple regression analysis to test the conceptual model and proposed hypotheses.FindingsMillennials' online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic was significantly affected by perceived threat of Covid-19, knowledge of the DHCM use and the facilitating conditions. However, it was not significantly affected by e-health literacy, information quality and source credibility.Research limitations/implicationsThis research employed a purposive sampling technique. This research also was conducted only in Tangerang Regency and Tangerang City, Indonesia. In order to test the stability of the research findings, future research should be conducted in other contexts.Practical implicationsIn order to improve Millennials' online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was essential to educate Millennials on the importance of healthy food consumption during the Covid-19 pandemic and their relationships. It is also important to enrich Millennials' knowledge of reliable and trustworthy online health information sources, such as the DHCM, and the search method. Furthermore, the facilitating conditions of online healthy food information-sharing behaviour should be improved.Originality/valueIt is well known that online healthy food information-sharing behaviour is important during Covid-19 pandemic. However, there is lack of study that specifically focused on Millennials' online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic. This paper is the first that develops and tests a model of Millennials' online healthy food information-sharing behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic. The model can be used to understand the behaviour and develop intervention strategy.

This paper investigates the role of information literacy in the academic success of undergraduate students in Uzbekistan's higher education system. It explores the ability of students to locate, evaluate, and utilize information from both digital and traditional sources in an ethical and academically rigorous manner. A mixed-methods approach was employed, including surveys of 120 students and interviews with 15 faculty and library staff, as well as classroom and library observations. The findings highlight significant challenges related to the underuse of academic databases, insufficient citation skills, and a general lack of engagement with credible sources. The study proposes a three-phase methodological framework aimed at enhancing students’ competencies through structured instruction, academic writing support, and collaborative educator-librarian interventions. The results suggest that embedding information literacy within curricula is essential for equipping students with the critical skills needed for scholarly inquiry and lifelong learning.

BackgroundIn today's society, people are experiencing the rapid development of digitalisation. Expecting parents may have difficulties evaluating the information online; they are not always sure which sources of information are trustworthy, and this exacerbates their feelings of anxiety. More research is needed to broaden the knowledge about how their use of digital sources may influence their health.QuestionThe focus of this study was to explore expecting parents’ use of digital sources and how this influences their health during pregnancy.MethodsA systematic review covered the thematic analysis of 39 articles.FindingsThe analysis resulted in the following theme: The digitalised society involves both opportunities and challenges, and expecting parents express a need for a variety of digital sources to improve their health, and sub-themes: Digital sources could promote parents’ health and well-being in a digitalised society; Consuming digital health information facilitates understanding, different feelings and social connections; and A variety of digital sources may facilitate parental identification and adaption to parenthood.ConclusionDifferent digital sources in our digitalised society mean access to information and opportunities to extend social connections for expecting parents. This can promote their ability to understand and adapt to parenthood, as well as to improve their health and well-being and make the parental transition. However, professional support during face-to-face consultations cannot always be exchanged to digital sources. It is important to base digital sources devoted to expecting parents and digitalisation overall on multi-sectorial collaborations and coordination between different organisations and the digital sources they provide.