The spread of false information – misinformation, disinformation, and fake news - increasingly influences public opinion and threatens democratic societies across Europe and beyond. False information causes feelings of confusion and insecurity, erodes trust in journalism and democratic institutions, weakens social cohesion, limits peoples’ access to reliable information, and hinders pluralism by oppressing marginalized voices.

Young people, as avid consumers of social media, are particularly vulnerable to false information. Adolescence and young adulthood are widely recognized as a sensitive period and a key stage for developing political values and interests, which shape one’s public, civic, and political identity identity. Thus, young people’s engagement with politics during adolescence plays a vital role in shaping civic and social participation. However, the increasing reliance on information and communication technologies (ICT) has made information intake increasingly complex and difficult to navigate. Young people often experience politics through ICT and use it as tool for identity, relationship, and information management. Consequently, their ability to critically assess and verify online information is essential.

Despite the growing importance of digital literacy, research suggests that children and adolescents often lack the skills necessary to verify online information. This leaves them susceptible to false information and manipulation, ultimately influencing their political socialization. Given the potential severe consequences, it is of global interest to understand how young people process, respond to, and are affected by false information.

When investigating the various phenomena of false information, one of the few existing theoretical models is the Misinformation Recognition and Response Model (MRRM). It describes how individuals identify and effectively respond to potentially false or misleading information. The MRRM outlines a step-by-step process that integrates cognitive and behavioral elements influenced by different factors. It begins with recognizing misinformation, proceeds through distinct cognitive coping strategies, and ultimately shapes cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. By applying the model, the review aims to systematically examine young people’s processing of false information.

While numerous studies have explored the phenomena of false information, a comprehensive overview of existing findings focusing on young people is currently lacking. However, particularly young people require evidence-based and scientifically sound support when dealing with false information. Existing research syntheses often fail to map the full range of aspects related to false information, including influencing factors, responses, and consequences. To fill these research gaps, this scoping review focusing false information among people aged 5 to 25 was conducted to offer insights for future research and educational approaches.

The review’s research questions are guided the modified version of the MRRM, which provides a valuable structure for exploring the diverse findings on false information among young people. The research questions explore various dimensions of young people’s engagement with false information: which possible responses of young people to false information have been examined in previous research (RQ 1), which factors influence young people’s exposure to false information and their responses (RQ 2), and what are the possible consequences of false information exposure for young people examined in previous research (RQ 3). As understanding existing prevention and intervention efforts help to enhance strategies to deal with false information, the next question was, which prevention and intervention efforts for young people have been examined in previous research (RQ 4)? To provide a comprehensive overview of the existing research, the final question considers other relevant findings on false information among young people (RQ 5).

Due to the study’s aim to provide a comprehensive overview, it was decided to conduct a scoping rather than a systematic review. The review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the Recommendations for the Extraction, Analysis, and Presentation of Results in Scoping Reviews, and the methodological framework for scoping reviews by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Before the database search, eligibility criteria were defined, focusing for instance on participants (age range 5 – 25) and construct (misinformation, disinformation, and fake news). No restrictions were applied on countries and publication dates were applied, as the goal was to map the entire body of research on false information. To identify relevant studies, the academic databases PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, Web of Science, and SCOPUS were searched. The search string was developed iteratively, applying all terms – except for “misinform*” – to titles, abstracts, keywords and/or subject terms. This broad search identified 2 265 studies. Then, titles and abstracts were screened using Covidence (κ=0.88), followed by a full-text screening (κ=0.86). Both were partly completed by two screeners with strong intercoder reliability. Following screening, 151 studies met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Data extraction was also completed using Covidence, with 20% coded by two raters. For all single-choice questions and the dichotomized variables of multiple-choice question asking for the variables investigated in the study (e.g., frequency of exposure) Cohen’s Kappa was calculated. The average interrater reliability after 20% of the studies was κ = 0.91. Additionally, 20% of the studies were coded two times by the main rater. The average intrarater reliability was κ = 0.82, indicating a good consistency in rating. The analysis of the extracted data followed a two-step process. First, a descriptive quantitative numerical analysis was performed, summarizing frequencies and percentages using RStudio (version 2024.09.1). Second, basic qualitative content analysis was applied, categorical coding and simplification to map the evidence. The coding process was conducted utilizing MAXQDA (version 24.7.0) and was guided by the MRRM. It also allowed for open coding and the creation of new categories. Thus, inductive and deductive approaches were combined.

Data from 151 studies were extracted, with the majority (n = 107) examining young people’s responses to false information. Findings revealed that while young people often struggled to detect false information, they often expressed high confidence in their abilities to do so. This overconfidence, combined with the Third-Person Effect—where individuals believe others are more susceptible to false information than themselves—highlights the need for interventions that balance self-confidence with awareness of personal susceptibility. Further, although young people generally avoided sharing false information, they were also reluctant to take active measures to combat it. Instead, many preferred to ignore false information, allowing it to continue circulating unchecked. Studies investigating factors that influence responses to false information found no conclusive patterns regarding age and gender, but partisanship and prior opinions played a significant role in shaping how young people processed false information. Additionally, situational factors, such as the amount of false information confronted with and the time spent on the evaluation, also significantly impacted the accuracy of detection. Considering consequences of false information, the review underscored its negative societal and individual effects. Many young people reported withdrawing from public discourse and experiencing fear and uncertainty as a result of exposure to false information. Despite a wide range of prevention and intervention programs, most focused on improving young people’s detection ability and raising awareness about false information. However, the findings emphasize the need for additional programs targeting children, who are particularly vulnerable. Moreover, interventions and prevention programs should go beyond detection and foster active responses, such as countering or reporting false information. To ensure long-term effectiveness, programs also need to be evaluated on a long-term basis.

Amazeen, M. A. (2024). The misinformation recognition and response model: an emerging theoretical framework for investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition. Human Communication Research, 50(2), 218–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad040 Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Baptista, J. P., & Gradim, A. (2020). Understanding Fake News Consumption: A Review. Social Sciences, 9(10), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9100185 Dumitru, E.‑A., Ivan, L., & Loos, E. (2022). A Generational Approach to Fight Fake News: In Search of Effective Media Literacy Training and Interventions. In Q. Gao & J. Zhou (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Design, Interaction and Technology Acceptance (Vol. 13330, pp. 291–310). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05581-2_22 Fend, H. (1991). Identitätsentwicklung in der Adoleszenz: Lebensentwürfe, Selbstfindung und Weltaneignung in beruflichen, familiären und politisch-weltanschaulichen Bereichen. Hans Huber. Gorodova, J., Pachina, N., Perfilova, A., & Pachin, G. (2023). Digital Competence as a Factor of Political Socialization of Youth. In 2023 3rd International Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning in Higher Education (TELE) (pp. 241–245). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/TELE58910.2023.10184351 Livingstone, S., Cagiltay, K., & Ólafsson, K. (2015). EU Kids Online II Dataset: A cross‐national study of children's use of the Internet and its associated opportunities and risks. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(5), 988–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12317 Pollock, D., Peters, M. D. J., Khalil, H., McInerney, P., Alexander, L., Tricco, A. C., Evans, C., Moraes, É. B. de, Godfrey, C. M., Pieper, D., Saran, A., Stern, C., & Munn, Z. (2023). Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 21(3), 520–532. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-22-00123 Slavtcheva-Petkova, V. (2023). Young People, Media and Politics in the Digital Age. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003201632 Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., Straus, S. E. (2018). Prisma Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 United Nations (Ed.). (2021). Convention on the Rights of the Child: General comment No. 25 (2021) on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. Commitee on the Rights of the Child.