A shocking post lands in your family chat. A photo, a few angry words, "share before they delete this!" Your thumb is already on the forward button. That pull is no accident. Researchers who studied over a million Facebook links and 44,529 tweets found that misinformation sources stirred more outrage than trustworthy ones, and that people were more willing to share outrage-stirring misinformation without reading it first [1]. The feeling comes first and the facts come later, if at all. So the rule for this whole article is simple: if it makes you angry fast, check it slow.
This Expert version goes deeper into the same five skills as the Basic version: pause on a strong feeling, read sideways, trace the claim and the photo, name the trick, and correct with a truth sandwich. For each one you get the reason it works, an exact routine, what to do when it does not work, notes for special groups, and a way to measure progress.
Step 1: Pause When You Feel Anger, Fear or "Finally, Proof!"
WHY THIS MATTERS
Sharing is not the same as believing. In one set of experiments, whether a headline was true had little effect on whether people wanted to share it, even though it had a large effect on whether they judged it accurate [2]. Most participants said it was important to share only accurate news. The researchers concluded that people often share false posts because their attention is on other things, such as the feeling or the group, not because they stopped caring about truth [2]. Outrage makes this worse, because it spreads misinformation at least as strongly as trustworthy news and pushes people to share without reading [1].
The fix is a question. Across 20 experiments with 26,863 people, prompts that turned attention to accuracy cut plans to share false headlines by about 10% [6]. The effect held for political and COVID-19 headlines and did not wear off over the course of a session [6]. In a field test on Twitter, a subtle nudge toward accuracy raised the quality of the news people went on to share [2].
Across 20 experiments with 26,863 people, prompts that turned attention to accuracy cut plans to share false headlines by about 10% [[6]].
Feeling sure is a weak guide here. In a meta-analysis of 31 experiments and 11,561 people, feeling familiar with a headline, and the headline fitting your own views, both pushed people toward calling news true [7].
- Write down your 3 hot buttons today: the topics that make you want to share fast. Common ones are health scares, politics, crime, money and stories about your own group.
- When a post makes you angry or afraid, or makes you think "finally, proof!", take your hands off the screen and count slowly to 10.
- Ask one question before every share: "Is this accurate?" Rate it from 1 to 5 in your head. Share only a 4 or 5 that you have checked with Steps 2 and 3 [6].
- When a claim feels familiar, or feels exactly right for your side, ask: "Do I know this, or have I just seen it a lot, and do I want it to be true?" [7]
- Never share a headline you have not opened and read to the end [1]. If the link does not open, do not share it.
- Put the question where your thumb goes. Save a phone note or wallpaper that says "Accurate?" so the prompt meets you before the share button does [2].
When it does not work
- "I only notice after I've already shared." Move the pause earlier: make the trigger the feeling itself, not the share button. Outrage is the signal that the post may be built to spread [1].
- "I asked the question and still believed it." That is fine. The question is not a verdict; it is the door to Steps 2 and 3. Rate it 3 and check it.
- "It's just a joke or a meme." Sharing still spreads it, whatever you meant [2]. If it is false, skip it or say it is false.
Within a week, strong feelings start to work as your cue to check, and fewer unchecked posts leave your phone.
Step 2: Read Sideways to See Who Is Behind It
WHY THIS MATTERS
A site can fake its own look: a smart logo, an "About us" page, a ".org" address. What it cannot fake is what others say about it. Education researchers Sam Wineburg and Sarah McGrew found that professional fact-checkers quickly leave a page and open new tabs to learn about the source. They call this lateral reading [3]. It can be taught. College students given lateral-reading lessons (136 students) were more likely than students in normal classes (94 students) to read laterally and to judge correctly whether information could be trusted [3].
Knowing the source helps you sort true from false. In the meta-analysis of 31 experiments, showing the source next to a headline went with better judgments of true and false news [7]. A review of 81 studies lists lateral reading and verification among the 9 main types of tools against misinformation [4].
- Use the four moves of digital literacy teacher Mike Caulfield on any unfamiliar site or account: stop and check your emotions, investigate the source, look for trusted coverage of the claim, and find the original [3].
- To investigate the source, open a new tab. Search the site's or account's name plus "who owns", "funded by" or "fact check". Read what other people and organisations say about it, and skip its own "About us" page [3].
- Look over the whole first page of results before you click anything. Fact-checkers call this click restraint [3]. Pick a known news outlet, public body or university over an unknown site.
- Give yourself about 60 seconds to answer two questions: who is behind this, and are they in a position to know? Think about their track record, their expertise and their motives [5]. If you cannot tell, do not share.
- For a social media account, check how old it is, what else it posts, and whether it claims to be a person or group that has an official account somewhere else.
- For messages forwarded in chat groups with no named source, treat them as unchecked until you find the original [3].
When it does not work
- "The search results only show the site itself." A source almost nobody writes about is a verdict of its own: treat it as unknown, and look for the claim from a source you can check (Step 3).
- "The results are mixed." Weigh who is talking. A public body, a university or a known newsroom outweighs forums and anonymous accounts.
- "It took me 5 minutes." That is normal at first. Repeat the routine on 5 unfamiliar sites a week and time it; the moves get faster with practice [3].
Within 2 weeks you can judge a new source in about a minute and say why you trust it or not.
Step 3: Trace the Claim and the Photo to Where They Started
WHY THIS MATTERS
Many viral posts are real items with the context stripped away, such as an old photo from another country or a video from a different event. Lateral reading means leaving the post to find out whether someone has already fact-checked the claim and to identify the original source [3]. The 81-study review counts image searching and tracing the original context among these verification tools [4]. Fact-checks work across cultures: tested in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa and the United Kingdom, they reduced belief in false claims, and most effects lasted more than 2 weeks [4].
- Pick the claim's key words and add "fact check" to your search [3].
- Look for a fact-checker that shows its sources and names its writers. AFP Fact Check (in many languages), Africa Check, Chequeado in Argentina and Full Fact in the UK are examples. If only unknown sites repeat the claim, treat it as unconfirmed.
- For a shocking image, long-press or right-click it and run a reverse image search [3]. Look for the oldest copy and check its date and place. A photo that appeared years earlier, or in another country, is out of context.
- For a video, take a screenshot of a clear frame and reverse-search the screenshot the same way.
- Before you share, write one line under the post in your notes: "first seen: <date, place>" or "first seen: not found". If you cannot fill it in, the post stays on your phone.
When it does not work
- "No fact-check exists yet." New claims often have none. Treat the claim as unconfirmed and do not share it until a source you checked in Step 2 reports it.
- "The image search finds nothing older." Search the place, date and key words in the caption instead, and compare with what known outlets reported that day.
- "The fact-checker and the post disagree, and I trust the post more." Notice that this is Step 1's familiarity and fit at work [7]. Ask what evidence each one shows you, and follow the evidence.
Within 3 weeks you can find where most claims, quotes and photos started, and you spot old or out-of-context material before it fools you.
Step 4: Name the Trick, and Practise With a Game Every 1 to 2 Months
WHY THIS MATTERS
The same few tricks power most misinformation, whatever the topic. Learning them in advance is called prebunking, or inoculation: a warning plus a weak dose of the trick, explained, so you resist it later [5]. Even a general warning that you might be misled makes people more open to later corrections [5]. Psychologists Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden made five short videos on common tricks: emotional language, incoherence, false choices, scapegoating and personal attacks. In six randomised studies with 6,464 people and a YouTube field study with 22,632 people, viewers spotted the tricks better, told trustworthy from untrustworthy content better and made better sharing choices, and the effects held across the political spectrum [8].
Tricks travel between topics, so one lesson protects you in many places. Once you know that one kind of misinformation uses cherry-picking, you can spot it in another topic too [5]. The protection fades, though: after the Bad News game, the effect lasted 3 months when people kept practising, but faded within 2 months without it [4].
- Play one free prebunking game this week, such as Bad News, Go Viral! (about 5 minutes) or Harmony Square [4].
- Put a repeating reminder in your calendar to play again, or play a different one, every 1 to 2 months [4].
- Name the trick in 3 posts today. Use this list: emotional words, fake experts, impersonation (a fake account dressed as a real one), false choices ("either you agree or you hate us"), blaming a group, or cherry-picked numbers [8] [4] [5].
- For a fake expert, search the person: is this their field, and do most experts in that field agree [5]? For a number, ask: compared to what, over what time, and what was left out?
- Say the name of the trick out loud or in a note ("that's a false choice"). Naming it turns the trick into a signal to check, instead of a push to share.
When it does not work
- "I see tricks everywhere now, even in true posts." A trick shows how a post persuades, not whether it is false. Use the trick as a cue for Steps 2 and 3, then decide.
- "The game felt too easy." Move on to another game, or name tricks in real posts from your own feed, where they are harder to see.
- "I forget the tricks after a few weeks." That is the fading effect. The calendar reminder in action 2 is the fix [4].
Within a month you name tricks faster and feel less pull from posts built to provoke you.
Step 5: Correct With a Truth Sandwich, and Fix Your Own Shares Fast
WHY THIS MATTERS
A false claim tends to stick even after people hear and accept a correction. This is called the continued influence effect [5]. A simple "that's not true" is not enough; corrections work best when they explain why the claim is false and what is true instead [5]. The Debunking Handbook 2020, written by Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and over 20 other researchers, sets out the truth sandwich: fact, a warning and the myth once, why it misleads, and the fact again [5].
Many people fear that repeating a myth spreads it. Three experiments with 1,718 people found that corrections did not strengthen false beliefs, even among people who had never heard the myth before [9]. Needless repetition is still worth avoiding, because hearing something often makes it seem true [5]. Corrections from ordinary users can work, and people who see someone else being corrected can also end up with more accurate views [5].
- Fact. Lead with the true fact in one plain, concrete sentence, if it can be said simply [5].
- Myth, once. Warn that a myth is coming and name it one time ("A post going around says...") [5] [9].
- Why it is wrong. Explain why it misleads: name the trick from Step 4 and give one good source. If possible, give an alternative explanation that fills the gap the myth leaves [5].
- Fact again. End with the fact, so it is the last thing people read [5].
- Make the correction as visible as the myth: put it in the same chat or thread, at the top, not buried in a long reply [5].
- If you shared something false, post a correction in the same place as soon as you can, ideally within a day, then delete or edit the original [5]. Say it plainly: "I got this wrong. Here is what is true."
When it does not work
- "The truth is too complicated for one sentence." Lead with why the myth is wrong, then give the facts [5].
- "My correction got fewer views than the myth." Repost the fact on its own, as a short post with the source, and pin or reply it to the top of the thread. The effect of a correction wears off over time, so a second, shorter correction is normal [5].
- "I'm embarrassed to correct my own post." A short, plain correction protects the people who trusted you. Silence leaves the false version standing [5].
Within a month you can correct a claim in four short lines without spreading it further, and you fix your own false shares the same day.
Special groups
- Older adults. In the 31-experiment meta-analysis, older people were better at telling true from false news and more cautious [7], and accuracy prompts worked better for older participants [6]. Step 1 suits you well. Step 2 and the reverse image search in Step 3 are the newest skills for many people, so practise them on a few posts with someone you trust.
- Students. Lateral reading is teachable in a normal course, and students who did more of the online practice tasks improved more [3].
- People with strong views on a topic. A headline that fits your side is the one you are most likely to believe too fast [7]. Add your side's favourite topics to your Step 1 hot-button list.
- Health posts. A post that urges you to stop a medicine or change a treatment is a hot button for many people. Check it with Steps 2 and 3, and talk to your doctor or pharmacist before you act.
Track it
For 7 days, keep a simple tally in a phone note. For every post you share or forward, write "checked" or "not checked", and how (pause, sideways search, fact check, image search). Also time yourself checking who is behind 5 unfamiliar sites or accounts on day 1. On day 21, count your checked shares again and repeat the 5-source timing test. Aim for every share checked and about 60 seconds per source.
Skill Check
| Skill | Starting | Solid | Strong |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pause before sharing | Few or none of your last 2 weeks' shares checked | Most shares checked | All shares checked, and every post that made you angry or afraid got a check |
| Read sideways | Several minutes per source, or you read only the page itself | Under 2 minutes per source | About 60 seconds per source, with a verdict you can back up |
| Trace a claim and a photo | 0 or 1 of 3 claims traced; never done a reverse image search | 2 of 3 claims and 2 of 3 images traced | 3 of 3 of each, and you check every shocking image before sharing |
| Name the trick | You cannot name the trick in most posts | You name the trick in 3 posts a day | You name it on sight and replay a game every 1 to 2 months |
| Correct kindly | You say "that's false" or stay silent | You use the truth sandwich sometimes | Every correction uses all four parts, and your own false shares are fixed within a day |
Myths
- "People share fake news because they don't care about truth." Mostly false. Most people say accuracy matters; they share false posts because their attention is elsewhere [2].
- "Repeating a myth to correct it makes it spread." Mostly false. Corrections that named a myth did not strengthen it, even for people new to it [9]. Name it once, not over and over [5].
- "A professional-looking site is a trustworthy site." False. Fact-checkers judge a site by what others say about it, not by how it looks [3].
- "Once you learn the tricks, you're protected for good." False. The protection fades within months without practice [4].
- "Only one side falls for misinformation." False. Everyone leans toward believing headlines that fit their own views [7], and prebunking worked across the political spectrum [8].
FAQ
- Does one question really change what I share? In 20 experiments it cut plans to share false headlines by about 10%, and the effect did not wear off during the session [6].
- Why not just read the site's "About us" page? A site writes its own "About us". Fact-checkers learn more by leaving the page and searching about the source [3].
- Do fact-checks work outside the US and Europe? Yes. Tests in Argentina, Nigeria and South Africa, as well as the UK, found fact-checks reduced belief in false claims [4].
- How often should I replay a prebunking game? Every 1 to 2 months. Without practice the effect faded within 2 months [4].
- Should I correct a stranger online? You can. User corrections can work, and the people watching benefit too [5]. Use the truth sandwich and stay polite.
When to get more help
If a scary health post makes you want to stop a medicine or change a treatment, talk to your doctor or pharmacist before you act. If you think you have been scammed, call your bank using the number on your card. If someone is in danger, call your local emergency number. If a post leaves you so worried or upset that you cannot cope, find a free helpline in your country at findahelpline.com.
Go further
- How your own mind fools you, beyond news: Feeling Sure Isn't Being Right: Spot and Beat Your Cognitive Biases.
- Scam messages and fake calls: Stop, Check, Talk: Spot and Stop Scams.
- Kinds of false information and why it spreads: Why False Stories Spread, and Why Smart People Fall for Them.
- How feeds, bots and outrage bait shape what you see: See What Your Feed Is Doing: Algorithms, Bots and Outrage Bait.
- Long conversations with a friend or relative who believes a false story: Talk to Someone Who Believes a False Story, and Keep the Relationship.
- Tracing quotes and numbers, and checking breaking news: Search Like a Fact-checker: Trace a Claim, Quote or Number to Its Source.
- Persuasion in speeches, opinion pieces and videos: See Through Persuasion in Speeches, Opinion Pieces and Videos, Tiktok and Youtube Included.
- Picking your news sources: Choose Fewer, Better Sources and Break Your Bubble.
- The share log, quiz and full plan: Become Hard to Fool: Your 6-Week Checking Plan.
