Misinformation & Media LiteracyMisinformation & Media Literacy. Everyone believes they can spot a fake. The research disagrees.
A scored diagnostic of the skill this decade actually demands: 19 situations built from how misinformation really travels — the family group chat, the outrageous clip, the official-looking site — plus the true stories your over-suspicion could wrongly kill.
Tests the sharing finger, not just the reading eye
Most media-literacy quizzes test whether you can name propaganda techniques. This one measures what you would actually do: with the health scare your cousin forwarded, the crime graph with the cropped axis, the eleven-second clip that feels true, the cyclone warning your neighbour scoffs at.
The Signal Filter is a new scoring design: every option carries a hidden amplification weight — does your choice spread the claim, park it, or check it? — and an arousal flag for the reactive path. Your report shows where claims get past you across three filter layers, plus your Amplification Index and Trigger Susceptibility.
Crucially, the instrument contains true, well-sourced signals whose right answer is to accept and act. Blanket cynicism scores as an error — because the research shows misplaced distrust of real news does damage too.
What you walk away with
Source, evidence and emotion layers, each with a pass-through score — the picture of where claims get past you.
Whether you are a net damper or a net amplifier of unverified claims — the role your account actually plays in the spread.
How often the high-arousal reactive path captured you when it was offered — the lever viral misinformation is built on.
Whether your skepticism also blocks true signals — agency warnings, replicated studies — that deserved to get through.
Your two weakest layers converted into specific habits: lateral reading, the twenty-minute rule, the accuracy pause.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Built for
- Students and graduates building the information skills exams never tested
- Educators and parents who want a scored baseline rather than a lecture
- Anyone whose group chats, feeds and inboxes deliver claims all day
Test your filter before your feed does
30 scored exercises · about 25 minutes · full bespoke report with your filter stack, Amplification Index and Trigger Susceptibility.
Take free · full report ₹249 (incl. GST)
Frequently asked questions
Four competencies: checking the source, reading the evidence, resisting the emotional hook, and sharing discipline. It measures what you would actually do with 19 realistic claims — forwards, clips, charts, appeals — including true ones your over-suspicion could wrongly dismiss.
Every option carries a graded quality score keyed to the published research — lateral reading, accuracy prompts, the illusory-truth effect, the spread of false news — plus a hidden amplification weight and an arousal flag. These build your Amplification Index and Trigger Susceptibility, scored separately from answer quality.
Students, graduates and adults of any background. The language is plain, the scenarios are everyday — group chats, feeds, family forwards — and no technical or political knowledge is needed.
About 25 minutes for 30 scored exercises. You get a full report styled as a signal filter: three layer scores, both indices, four banded competencies and a week of specific drills — downloadable as a colour PDF.
₹249 in India (including GST) or US$2.99 elsewhere, one-time, for one full sitting and report — free quizzes give no scored profile, and paid critical-thinking tests run $9–$29. In India the sitting starts free and the report unlocks on payment.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Measures applied misinformation judgment through original situational items keyed to published evidence: lateral reading and the failure of checklist-style source evaluation (Wineburg & McGrew, 2019), analytic thinking and accuracy prompts in sharing decisions (Pennycook & Rand, 2019; Pennycook et al., 2021), the faster spread of false news and the role of novelty and emotion (Vosoughi, Roy & Aral, 2018), emotional arousal and viral sharing (Berger & Milkman, 2012), the illusory-truth effect of repetition (Fazio, Brashier, Payne & Marsh, 2015), inoculation and prebunking research (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019; van der Linden, 2022), effective debunking practice (Lewandowsky et al., The Debunking Handbook 2020), credibility heuristics and their limits (Metzger & Flanagin, 2013), digital-literacy interventions and discernment (Guess et al., 2020), the danger of over-skepticism degrading trust in true news (Acerbi, Altay & Mercier, 2022), dual-process accounts of reasoning (Kahneman, 2011), and source-verification practice as publicly described in fact-checking methodology (lateral reading, reverse image search). All items are original works; no trademarked instrument or curriculum is reproduced, and no affiliation is claimed.