The aim of this paper is to investigate when and how Brazilian teenagers assess the credibility of information sources. We analyze data collected through focus groups, guided internet searches, and interviews with sixty-one 14- to 19-year olds from the state of Rio de Janeiro. Participants used different criteria to attribute credibility to information sources, with expertise and reputation being two of the most relevant, placing specialists, teachers, and the mainstream media at the top of their list of credible sources. Interestingly, these sources are not necessarily the ones that are most present in their daily lives, and credibility is only a relevant factor in some circumstances. Based on our results and data from other studies on the topic, we propose three navigation regimes (dilletante, motivated, and constrained) as a framework for analyzing teenagers’ information evaluation behavior, in which the role of sources’ credibility varies considerably. We believe this framework can help in the development of more effective strategies for improving young people’s sourcing skills and media literacy.
AllcottHGentzkowM (2017) Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(2): 211–236.
2.
AmorimLMassaraniLBaccinoT (2021) A recepção de textos críveis e falsos sobre saúde, a (des)importância da fonte de informação e motivações para o compartilhamento. Journal of Science Communication América Latina04(1): A02.
3.
AppelmanASundarSS (2016) Measuring message credibility: Construction and validation of an exclusive scale. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93(1): 59–79.
4.
Ardèvol-AbreuAGildeZúñigaH (2017) Effects of editorial media bias perception and media trust on the use of traditional, citizen, and social media news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly94(3): 703–724.
5.
BandeiraOCarranzaB (2020) Reactions to the pandemic in Latin America and Brazil: Are religions essential services?International Journal of Latin American Religions4(2): 170–193.
6.
BraaschJLBråtenIMcCruddenMT (eds) (2018) Handbook of Multiple Source Use. New York, NY: Routledge.
7.
Brasil (2016) Presidência da República. Secretaria Especial de Comunicação Social. Pesquisa brasileira de mídia 2016: hábitos de consumo de mídia pela população brasileira. Brasília, DC: Secom, p. 11.
8.
BråtenIStadtlerMSalmerónL (2018) The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In: SchoberMFRappDNBrittMA (eds) Routledge Handbooks in Linguistics. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, pp.141–166.
9.
BrittMAAglinskasC (2002) Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction20: 485–522.
10.
BrittMARouetJFDurikAM (2017) Literacy Beyond Text Comprehension: A Theory of Purposeful Reading. Florida: Taylor & Francis.
11.
CardonD (2019) Culture numérique. Paris: Presses de Science Po.
12.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
13.
CoiroJCoscarelliCMaykelC, et al. (2015) Investigating criteria that seventh graders use to evaluate the quality of online information. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy59(3): 287–297.
14.
CordierA (2019) Ados en quête d’infos: De la jungle à la steppe, cheminer em conscience. Revue de socio-anthropologie de l’adolescence. In: LachanceJ (ed.) Accompagner Les Ados À L’ère Du Numérique. Laval: Presses Universitaires de Laval, pp. 91–122.
15.
CrooksDL (2001) The importance of symbolic interaction in grounded theory research on women’s health. Health Care for Women International22: 11–27.
16.
CurrieLDevlinFEmdeJ, et al. (2010) Undergraduate search strategies and evaluation criteria: Searching for credible sources. New Library World111(3/4): 113–124.
17.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2000) Perceptions of internet information credibility. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly77(3): 515–540.
18.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2007) The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society9(2): 319–342.
19.
FlanaginAJMetzgerMJ (2010) Kids and Credibility: An Empirical Examination of Youth, Digital Media Use, and Information Credibility. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
20.
FoggBJ (2003) Prominence-interpretation theory: Explaining how people assess credibility online. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (eds CocktonGKorhonenP), Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 5–10 April 2003, pp.722–723. New York, NY: ACM.
21.
GasserUCortesiSMalikMM, et al. (2012) Youth and digital media: From credibility to information quality [Research publication no. 2012-1]. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center Research Publication. Available at: https://clalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/files/ssrn-id2005272.pdf (accessed 09 April 2021).
22.
GerjetsPKammererYWernerB (2011) Measuring spontaneous and instructed evaluation processes during web search: Integrating concurrent thinking-aloud protocols and eye-tracking data. Learning and Instruction21(2): 220–231.
GrayNJKleinJDNoycePR, et al. (2005) Health information-seeking behaviour in adolescence: The place of the Internet. Social Science & Medicine60: 1467–1478.
25.
GunterBCampbellVTouriM, et al. (2009) Blogs, news and credibility. Aslib Proceedings61(2): 185–204.
26.
HilligossBRiehSY (2008) Developing a unifying framework of credibility assessment: Construct, heuristics, and interaction in context. Information Processing & Management44(4): 1467–1484.
27.
JenkinsH (2015) Cultura da convergência. São Paulo: Aleph.
28.
JohnsonTJKayeBK (1998) Cruising is believing? Comparing internet and traditional sources on media credibility measures. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly75(2): 325–340.
29.
JulienHBarkerS (2009) How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library & Information Science Research31(1): 12–17.
30.
KiousisS (2001) Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication & Society4: 381–403.
31.
LadbrookJProbertE (2011) Information skills and critical literacy: Where are our digikids at with online searching and are their teachers helping?Australasian Journal of Educational Technology27(1): 105–121.
32.
LemosA (2014) Tecnologia e cibercultura. In: CitelliABergerCBaccegaMA, et al. (eds) Dicionário de comunicação: Eescolas, Tteorias Ee Aautores. São Paulo: Contexto, pp.53–64.
33.
LewandowskySEckerUKHCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369.
34.
Macedo-RouetMRouetJFEpsteinI, et al. (2003) Effects of online reading on popular science comprehension. Science Communication25(2): 99–128.
35.
Macedo-RouetMSalmerónLRosC, et al. (2020) Are frequent users of social network sites good information evaluators? An investigation of adolescents’ sourcing abilities (¿son los usuarios frecuentes de las redes sociales evaluadores competentes? Un estudio de las habilidades de los adolescentes para identificar, evaluar y hacer uso de las fuentes). Journal for the Study of Education and Development43(1): 101–138.
36.
Macedo-RouetMPotockiAScharrerL, et al. (2019) How good is this page? Benefits and limits of prompting on adolescents’ evaluation of web information quality. Reading Research Quarterly54: 299–321.
37.
MassaraniLCastelfranchiYFagundesV, et al. (2021) O que os jovens brasileiros pensam da ciência e da tecnologia? Pesquisa realizada pelo Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT-CPCT). Rio de Janeiro: Fiocruz-COC.
38.
McquailD (1992) Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. London: SAGE.
39.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
40.
Mídia Dados (2020) Mídia dados Brasil para todos. Grupo de Mídia. 2020. Available at: https://midiadadosgmsp.com.br/2020 (accessed 20 January 2021).
41.
NeumannC (2016) Teaching digital natives: Promoting information literacy and addressing instructional challenges. Reading Improvement53(3): 101–106.
42.
NewmanNFletcherRSchulzA, et al. (2020) Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020. Oxford: Reuters Institute, Oxford University.
PaulJMacedo-RouetMRouetJF, et al. (2017) Why attend to source information when reading online? The perspective of ninth grade students from two different countries. Computers & Education113: 339–354.
45.
PerrottiEPierucciniISerresA (2018) Educations aux médias, à l’information et au numérique au Brésil et en France: chemins croisés. Education comparée. Revue de recherche internationale et comparative en éducation19: 73–100.
PNUD-IPEA-FJP (2013) Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil. Available at: http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br (accessed 17 May 2021).
48.
RiehSY (2002) Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology53(2): 145–161.
RiehSY (2014) Credibility assessment of online information in context. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice2(3): 6–17.
51.
RiehSYDanielsonDR (2007) Credibility: A multidisciplinary framework. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology41(1): 307–364.
52.
SbaffiLRowleyJ (2017) Trust and credibility in web-based health information: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Medical Internet Research19(6): e218.
53.
ScheufeleDAKrauseNM (2019) Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America116(16): 7662–7669.
54.
Stanford History Education Group (2016) Evaluating information: The cornerstone of civic online reasoning. Available at: https://purl.stanford.edu/fv751yt5934 (accessed 8 May 2021).
StrømsøHIBråtenIBrittMA, et al. (2013) Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction31(2): 176–203.
57.
SundinOFranckeH (2009) In search of credibility: Pupils’ information practices in learning environments. Information Research14(4): 418.
58.
SwartJ (2021) Tactics of news literacy: How young people access, evaluate, and engage with news on social media. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211011447
59.
TaylorA (2012) A study of the information search behaviour of the millennial generation. Information Research17(1): 508.
60.
TsfatiYCappellaJN (2003) Do people watch what they do not trust? Exploring the association between news media skepticism and exposure. Communication Research30: 504–529.
61.
VijaykumarSJinYRogersonD, et al. (2021) How shades of truth and age affect responses to COVID-19 (mis) information: Randomized survey experiment among WhatsApp users in UK and Brazil. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications8(1): 88.
62.
WatsonC (2014) An exploratory study of secondary students’ judgments of the relevance and reliability of information. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology65(7): 1385–1408.
63.
WilsonP (1983) Second-Hand Knowledge: An Inquiry Into Cognitive Authority. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
64.
WineburgSMcGrewS (2016) Why students can't google their way to the truth. Education Week36(11): 22–28.
65.
WolfM (1999) Teorias da Comunicação. Lisboa: Presença.
