Outlook: Newsletter of the Society of Behavorial Medicine

Winter 2025

Outlook main page »

Empowering Parents: A Practical Guide to Helping Parents and Children Navigate Online Misinformation

Casie H. Morgan, PhD1; Alyssa M. Button, PhD2; Laura J. Caccavale, PhD2; Helena Laroche, MD3; MinKyoung Song, PhD4; Lindsay Stager, PhD5,6 - Child and Family Health SIG

“Paradox of progress” refers to the idea that as technology and access to scientific information improve, misinformation has spread more easily.1 While scientists understand that it is normal and natural for scientific evidence to evolve over time, sometimes how these changes are communicated to the public increases confusion, fear, and distrust in science.2-5 Clinicians can help protect the families from the negative impacts of health misinformation by empowering caregivers to be conscientious consumers of health information and help their children do the same.

Common health misperceptions

It is not uncommon for parents to have health misconceptions. Some misconceptions result from a simple misunderstanding and can be easily changed with new information; some health misconceptions are deeply ingrained beliefs and are more resistant to change. Some common and more minor myths include: 1) sugar makes kids hyper6,7 and 2) illness can be caused by cold climate.8,9 These misconceptions are unlikely to lead to harmful health behaviors. Examples of more dangerous misconceptions include: 1) children will outgrow behavior or mental health issues,10 2) vaccines or acetaminophen cause autism,11-13 3) harsh discipline is necessary,14 and 4) “science is just another opinion.”15 These beliefs can impact health decision making in a way that limits access to the care necessary for positive health outcomes.

Navigating misinformation online

The Online Misinformation Engagement Framework16,17 outlines four core stages through which individuals engage with online misinformation: source selection, information selection, evaluation, and reaction. This framework provides a structure for identifying effective points of intervention (e.g., adding credibility labels or providing media literacy guidance). Educational efforts (e.g., emphasizing the importance of verifying content accuracy through confirmation via multiple credible sources) are most effective in limiting the spread of misinformation.

To engage individuals in discussions about health misconceptions, it is important to show empathy, ask questions, offer alternative explanations and credible sources of information,18 and help individuals to recognize trustworthy information sources.

Show empathy. It is normal for people to feel strongly about what they believe, even if it is based on misinformation. Instead of arguing, show understanding and respect: “I appreciate the time you spent learning about this.” Listen carefully and reflect what you hear: “You found this on YouTube,” or “It sounds like that was upsetting for you.” Feeling heard helps reduce defensiveness and allows for discussion.

Ask questions. Be “curious not furious” with open-ended questions: “How do you know this information is true?” This helps families think critically instead of just accepting what they see online.

Offer alternative sources and explanations. Model healthy online habits19 by encouraging reliable sources (like.edu sites), avoiding clickbait, and talking about how social media can be misleading and contribute to harmful perceptions of self and others. Encouraging parents to set media limits and monitor social media alongside growing independence can build digital literacy and help kids safely navigate today’s online world. 20

As technology and access to scientific information have advanced, misinformation spreads more easily, especially in pediatric healthcare, where parental misconceptions can affect children’s well-being. Families can learn to navigate misinformation by practicing empathy, media literacy, and critical thinking. The Online Misinformation Engagement Framework offers accessible strategies to evaluate sources, verify accuracy, and support safe, informed online behaviors. For additional tools, visit SBM's Combating Misinformation section of the Sci-Comm Toolkit.

 Affiliations:

  1. Medical University of South Carolina
  2. Children’s Hospital of Richmond at Virginia Commonwealth University
  3. Center for Children’s Healthy Lifestyles & Nutrition at Children’s Mercy Kansas City 
  4. Oregon Health & Science University School of Nursing
  5. The Miriam Hospital
  6. Brown University

References:

  1. Fakhari, H., Kerstiens, S., & Dean Kruzel, M. (2024, Fall). Navigating the landscape of conflicting health information: The paradox of progress. Outlook: Newsletter of the Society of Behavioral Medicine. https://www.sbm.org/publications/outlook/issues/fall-2024/navigating-the-landscape-of-conflicting-health-information-the-paradox-of-progress/full-article
  2. Clark, D., Nagler, R. H., & Niederdeppe, J. (2019). Confusion and nutritional backlash from news media exposure to contradictory information about carbohydrates and dietary fats. Public Health Nutrition, 22(18), 3336–3348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019002866
  3. Iles, I. A., Gillman, A. S., O’Connor, L. E., Ferrer, R. A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2022). Understanding responses to different types of conflicting information about cancer prevention. Social Science & Medicine, 311, 115292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115292
  4. Nagler, R. H., Vogel, R. I., Gollust, S. E., Yzer, M. C., & Rothman, A. J. (2022). Effects of prior exposure to conflicting health information on responses to subsequent unrelated health messages: Results from a population-based longitudinal experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 56(5), 498–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaab069
  5. Nagler, R. H., Yzer, M. C., & Rothman, A. J. (2019). Effects of media exposure to conflicting information about mammography: Results from a population-based survey experiment. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 53(10), 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kay098
  6. Johnson, R. J., Gold, M. S., Johnson, D. R., Ishimoto, T., Lanaspa, M. A., Zahniser, N. R., & Avena, N. M. (2011). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Is it time to reappraise the role of sugar consumption? Postgraduate Medicine, 123(5), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2011.09.2458
  7. Wender, E. H., & Solanto, M. V. (1991). Effects of sugar on aggressive and inattentive behavior in children with attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity and normal children. Pediatrics, 88(5), 960–966. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.88.5.960
  8. Noor, A., Fiorito, T., & Krilov, L. R. (2019). Cold weather viruses. Pediatrics in Review, 40(10), 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.2018-0158
  9. Eccles, R., & Wilkinson, J. E. (2015). Exposure to cold and acute upper respiratory tract infection. Rhinology, 53(2), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.4193/Rhino14.239
  10. Hinshaw, S. P. (2005). The stigmatization of mental illness in children and parents: Developmental issues, family concerns, and research needs. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(7), 714–734. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01456.x
  11. Chatterjee, A., & O’Keefe, C. (2010). Current controversies in the USA regarding vaccine safety. Expert Review of Vaccines, 9(5), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1586/erv.10.36
  12. Gabis, L. V., Attia, O. L., Goldman, M., Barak, N., Tefera, P., Shefer, S., ... & Lerman-Sagie, T. (2022). The myth of vaccination and autism spectrum. European Journal of Paediatric Neurology, 36, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2022.01.006
  13. Lang, K. (2025). Trump’s claims on Tylenol (paracetamol), vaccines, and autism—what’s the truth? [Article].
  14. Wiggers, M., & Paas, F. (2022). Harsh physical discipline and externalizing behaviors in children: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(21), 14385. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192114385
  15. Association of American Medical Colleges. (n.d.). Why Americans distrust science. https://www.aamc.org
  16. American Psychological Association. (2025, September). Advocate: Autism wave of misinformation. Monitor on Psychology. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/09/advocate-autism-wave-misinformation
  17. Geers, M., Swire-Thompson, B., Lorenz-Spreen, P., Herzog, S. M., Kozyreva, A., & Hertwig, R. (2024). The online misinformation engagement framework. Current Opinion in Psychology, 55, 101739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101739
  18. Office of the Surgeon General. (2021). Confronting health misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572168/
  19. Center for Open Research. (n.d.). Inquiry Group. https://cor.inquirygroup.org/
  20. American Psychological Association. (2024, September). Media literacy and misinformation. Monitor on Psychology. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/09/media-literacy-misinformation