Picture a teenager scrolling through social media late at night. A headline flashes by—something shocking about a celebrity, a politician, or a health scare. It’s written in bold letters, with an image that looks convincing. Without thinking too much, they hit share. Seconds later, it’s out there, sent to friends and followers, whether it’s true or not. That scene plays out millions of times every day, and it’s exactly what a team of researchers set out to understand. In a new study from the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, researchers found that strong reading skills can make a dramatic difference in whether teenagers are able to resist misinformation online—and that the effect is especially powerful for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Jason Jabbari, an assistant professor at the Brown School, and Mobarak Hossain from the London School of Economics analyzed data from 232,901 teenagers in 49 countries who participated in the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA. The study, titled “‘Reading between the lies’: Reading achievement, socioeconomic inequality, and adolescents’ resistance to misinformation,” was published in the journal Social Science Research. It looked at how students evaluate and share online information, including whether they check accuracy, compare sources, and share information they know to be false. The central finding is both simple and profound: students with stronger reading skills are better able to spot misinformation, and for lower-income students, that advantage is even more pronounced. “Reading skills matter most for disadvantaged students,” Jabbari said. “The misinformation resistance gap between rich and poor students is largest among weaker readers and shrinks considerably among strong readers.” In other words, learning to read well may be one of the most powerful shields a young person can have in an age of digital deception.
Why would reading skills have such an outsized impact for disadvantaged students? The answer has a lot to do with the invisible supports that other students often take for granted. Teenagers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds tend to grow up in environments where credible news sources are more readily available, where parents discuss current events at the dinner table, and where skepticism is modeled as a normal part of thinking. They learn, often without realizing it, to question what they see and to look for reliable information. Lower-income students may not have those same supports. They may be more exposed to misinformation in their social feeds and less likely to have someone at home helping them parse what’s real. For these students, the ability to read closely, compare texts, and evaluate evidence becomes a compensatory mechanism—a way to fill in the gaps left by their environment. Jabbari and Hossain found that stronger reading skills gave students with fewer resources a greater advantage in resisting misinformation. “Reading skills could play a compensatory role here,” Jabbari said. “Students from more advantaged families often have other supports, like parents who discuss the news, access to credible sources and norms that encourage skepticism, while lower-income students may be less likely to have those supports and may face increased exposure to misinformation. As a result, the ability to comprehend, compare and evaluate texts may carry more weight for low-income students.” This insight reframes literacy as more than an academic milestone. It becomes a form of resilience. When a teenager from a disadvantaged background develops strong reading skills, they gain a critical defense against a constant stream of false claims, deceptive headlines, and manipulated images. The study suggests that strengthening literacy could be a meaningful way to reduce misinformation and its unequal effects—not just for individuals, but for society as a whole.
The research also paints a sobering picture of just how difficult it is for teenagers to navigate today’s information landscape. Despite reporting some basic verification habits, many students still fell for falsehoods. Nearly one-third of the students in the study said they had shared made-up information without flagging it as false. Many said they compared sources or checked information before sharing, but those habits didn’t always protect them. This might seem contradictory at first. How can someone check a source and still share something false? The answer becomes clearer when you think about how people actually behave online. Checking a source might mean a quick glance at a website’s design rather than investigating its credibility. Comparing sources might mean looking at two posts from similar accounts with similar biases. And in the fast-paced, emotionally charged world of social media, the impulse to share a shocking claim often outruns the slower, more deliberate process of verification. Jabbari noted that teenagers’ online behavior is shaped not only by their ability to evaluate information, but also by their social environment. They may worry about being left out of conversations, or they may feel pressure to post content that gets likes and shares. A false story about a favorite celebrity, a local scandal, or a controversial political topic can be irresistible, especially when friends are sharing it too. The study’s findings are a reminder that simply telling teenagers to “check the facts” isn’t enough. They need skills that help them slow down, think critically, and resist the social pull of sharing misinformation. And those skills are deeply tied to reading comprehension—the ability to understand what a text is really saying, who wrote it, and why it was written in the first place.
So what can schools do to help? The study points to several practical steps. First and foremost, schools can invest in building reading comprehension skills. This may seem obvious, but it carries particular weight for lower-income students, who appear to benefit the most from stronger reading abilities. When a student can parse complex texts, identify nuance, and evaluate an author’s argument, they are less likely to be fooled by a misleading headline or a manipulated image. But beyond general literacy, schools can teach specific verification strategies that go beyond common sense. One approach is lateral reading, a technique used by professional fact-checkers. Instead of staying on a single page and judging its credibility by how professional it looks, lateral readers leave the site and open new tabs to see what other sources say about the topic. This simple shift in behavior can reveal whether a website is trustworthy or whether it’s pushing a hidden agenda. Another strategy is “prebunking,” which involves exposing students to examples of misinformation before they encounter it in the wild, so they can recognize the patterns and tactics used to deceive. Game-based interventions have also shown promise, allowing students to learn how misinformation works by playing through simulated scenarios. And even simple prompts—like asking people to consider whether a piece of information is accurate before sharing it—can make a difference. Jabbari emphasized that 15-year-olds are a particularly important group to reach. They are at an age where they are increasingly navigating online information on their own, making their own choices about what to trust and what to share. But they are still in school, which means educators can reach nearly all of them before they enter adulthood and begin major milestones, like voting.
The implications of this study go far beyond the classroom. The findings challenge the idea that misinformation is simply a problem of individual ignorance or laziness. Instead, they show that misinformation tends to exploit gaps in resources, education, and opportunity. Low-income students are more vulnerable not because they lack intelligence, but because they often lack the safety nets that more privileged students enjoy—like parents who can explain how a news story works, or access to high-quality information sources. Reading skills can help close that gap, but they are not a cure-all. Schools, families, and technology companies all have roles to play in reducing the spread of false information. Social media platforms could do more to label misleading content, elevate credible sources, and reduce the algorithmic amplification of outrage. Parents and caregivers can model healthy information habits at home. And policymakers can invest in educational programs that prioritize critical literacy alongside traditional reading instruction. Still, the idea that literacy can serve as a shield for the most vulnerable students is deeply hopeful. It suggests that a relatively affordable investment—better reading instruction—can have a lasting impact on civic participation, democratic health, and individual well-being. When a teenager learns to read critically, they are not just learning to pass a test. They are learning to recognize manipulation, to question authority, and to make informed decisions. Those are the skills of a capable citizen, and they matter now more than ever. The study offers evidence that these skills can be taught and that they can make a tangible difference in how young people navigate the digital world.
Ultimately, this study is a reminder that reading is a form of power. In a world where falsehoods can spread faster than facts, where algorithms reward outrage, and where anyone can publish anything, the ability to read carefully is essential. It’s not just about decoding words on a page. It’s about understanding context, spotting bias, and asking the right questions. For teenagers from disadvantaged backgrounds, these skills can be a lifeline—a way to level a playing field that often seems tilted against them. The research from Jabbari and Hossain shows that the gap in misinformation resistance between rich and poor students shrinks dramatically when reading skills are strong. That’s a powerful argument for investing in literacy, not just as a school subject, but as a public good. It also underscores the importance of reaching young people early. At 15, students are on the cusp of adulthood. They are beginning to form political beliefs, to engage with the world beyond their classrooms, and to exercise their voices. If they can learn to read deeply and verify before sharing, they will be better prepared to participate in democracy—and less likely to be manipulated by those who spread lies. The study doesn’t claim that reading alone can solve the misinformation crisis. But it makes a compelling case that strong reading skills are a vital part of the answer. As Jabbari put it, schools can still reach nearly all 15-year-olds through classroom instruction “before they enter adulthood and begin major milestones, like voting.” That window of opportunity is precious. By helping students become stronger readers, we can help them become more thoughtful, skeptical, and resilient citizens—ready to face a complex world with open eyes and informed minds.