Exploring How Young People Navigate the Evolving Online World in the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Misinformation

Regarding device ownership, participants answered an open-ended question about when they received their first smart digital device. Most participants received their first devices between 9 and 13 years old, with 10 and 12 being the most frequent ages. A few participants reported getting their first phone between 15 and 16 years old, which may reflect individual parental choices or cultural practices.

Figure 3 illustrates the daily usage of smart devices among participants. The finding shows that 43.1% of respondents use these devices frequently throughout the day.

In comparison, 21.1% of students engage with their devices a few times each day, indicating a more moderate level of daily usage. Additionally, 20.2% of participants reported using their devices only once per day, and 10.1% use them less often, highlighting limited digital interaction for this segment.

Figure 3: Daily Smart Device Usage

Participants indicated a diverse range of online social networking sites and apps they use (see Figure 4). YouTube emerged as the most popular platform, with approximately 61.5% of participants indicating they regularly use it. Following YouTube, WhatsApp was favoured by 49.5% of participants, while TikTok was chosen by 43.1%. Snapchat came next at 40.4%, and Instagram was mentioned by 33.9% of participants. Additionally, participants highlighted other used apps, including Bedtime History, Patreon, Discord, Fortnite, Google, and Netflix.

Figure 4: Online Social Networking Sites

The data on online self-efficacy reveals a mixed level of awareness and confidence among respondents regarding online safety and digital skills (see appendices for complete statistics). Notably, a significant portion of students demonstrated high self- efficacy in key areas: 40% of respondents expressed high confidence in determining which videos to avoid posting online. In comparison, only 4.6% reported feeling no confidence in this regard (see Appendix 1). Additionally, 43.1% of students know "how to treat others respectfully online," indicating a solid grasp of online etiquette. 

In terms of confidence in misinformation content, participants demonstrate different confidence levels. For instance, most adolescents feel moderately confident in distinguishing jokes or parodies from real stories, with 56.8% rating their confidence as 4 and 25.7% as 3 on the scale. However, there are notable challenges in areas like detecting bot-generated content, where one in five respondents (20.3%) feels very unsure. Similarly, identifying fake online profiles poses difficulties, with 18.4% expressing low confidence. When it comes to recognising deepfake or AI-generated content, while some rated their confidence as 3 (27.5%) or 4 (22%), a smaller group (10.1%) remains rated 0 or 1 about being confident on this matter.

The findings reveal that participants are generally familiar with social media features. For instance, 30.3% are aware of the blocking button but have not used it, while 50.3% have utilised it in the past. Regarding privacy settings, 66.1% reported that they manage these settings themselves.

Table 4 demonstrates AI-based digital tools awareness, with participants being asked to reply to “When using digital media, which of the following features have you come across?”. The findings show that filters (photo or video) are the AI-based tool they are more aware of, with 61.5% of the adolescents reporting having encountered it. Smart and virtual assistants, such as Alexa and Cortana, seem to be quite present as well, with an awareness rate of 59.6%, while automatic spell check demonstrates is reported by 54.1% of respondents. Some adolescents have engaged with image generators and deepfakes, with 35.8% indicating they have encountered them. Additionally, 27.5% of participants indicated coming across algorithms, and 38.5% report encountering personalised feeds on social media.

From the total sample, 23% responded regarding influencers they follow, mentioning a wide range of influencers and celebrities. The findings indicate that the entertainment industry plays a significant role in shaping participants' interests, including music (e.g., Tylor Swifts, Beyonce), gaming (e.g., Minecraft YouTubers), and digital entertainment (e.g., MrBeast). Interestingly, one participant mentioned me in response to popular influence, and another brought up a Chinese name for a favourite influencer (科尔⽐ rose). Instead of naming a specific influencer, some participants mentioned the names of sports teams. This indicates that influencers may hold a collective meaning for some adolescents rather than referring to an individual figure. Additionally, some respondents mentioned they do not follow particular influencers. One also mentioned, “Funny videos, teenage make-up and fashion, TikTok dances. No one in particular.” This suggests that for some teenagers, influencers are not a considerable part of their online activities.

Participants’ perceptions and interactions with influencers were examined across dimensions of self-concept, emotional attachment, content consumption, and content creation (see Table 5).

In terms of engagement with influencer content, a significant percentage of respondents interact with it. For example, 32.1% of respondents "agree" and 6.4% "totally agree" that they view influencers' photos. For reading influencers' posts, 35.8% "agree" and 5.5% "totally agree." Engagement is highest with video content, where 45.9% "agree" and 6.4% "totally agree" that they watch influencers' videos. However, only 14.7% of users agree, and 5.5% totally agree that they comment on influencer posts. Additionally, creating stories about influencers is quite rare, as only 7.3% of users agree, and 4.6% totally agree with this behaviour.

These findings highlight that while participants frequently consume influencer content, content creation related to influencers is significantly lower. The survey indicates that adolescents have limited reliance on influencers in their daily lives. Only 1.8% of respondents believe their days would be significantly affected by the absence of the influencers they follow. In contrast, a substantial portion of adolescents —23.9% and 21.1%, respectively—disagree or strongly disagree with the notion that influencers play a crucial role in their routines. These suggest that the majority of adolescents do not believe that they depend heavily on influencers for their everyday experiences. However, some participants demonstrate moderate emotional attachment to social media influencers, as reflected in their concerns when influencers are inactive. Specifically, 15.6% of adolescents agree and 4.6% totally agree that they feel worried if a favoured influencer has not posted for a while, suggesting a degree of dependency on their activity.

Adolescents' perceptions of their online self were measured by the Presentation of the Online Self Scale (POSS). To assess the participants' views, we asked the following question: "For the items listed below, please select the answer that best describes how you feel about yourself in the online world." (POSS; Fullwood et al., 2016). Please see responses to all items for this scale below in Table 6.

Table 6 illustrates how adolescents perceive their online identities and actions. Notably, 31.2% of participants agree that the internet allows them to express themselves, while 33.9% feel neutral. This suggests that while many individuals use the internet for self expression, some remain undecided or believe that it depends on the situation. One notable finding is that almost 40% of respondents reported feeling like the same person online as they are in the real world, indicating a preference for authenticity in the online platform. In terms of the item “I regularly use different personas (roles/characters) online”, collectively, 54.1% disagreed or strongly disagreed, further demonstrating a willingness to remain authentic to themselves online. Interestingly, many adolescents feel more comfortable with face-to-face conversations. About 31.2% agree, while 17.4% strongly agree that in-person discussions are easier than online conversations, reflecting a comfort with traditional, direct communication.

Table 7 demonstrates the correct answer percentages of those who answered questions about spotting real or fake headlines. Participants showed varying awareness of real versus fake news, where eight headlines were presented: four real and four fake headlines. The data reveals a mixed ability among respondents to correctly identify real and fake news, with accuracy varying across different topics. Notably, the highest correct identification rate was observed for the fake headline about Wi-Fi causing brain damage in Irish teens, with 51.4% of respondents recognizing it as fake. This result suggests that respondents were sceptical of sensational health and technology claims. Similarly, 50.5% of participants correctly identified the real news about Instagram launching a "Restrict" feature to combat bullying, indicating some familiarity with recent advancements in technology aimed at promoting social well-being.

On the other hand, the lowest correct identification rate (27.5%) occurred with the fake news about a gaming console being linked to increased violence and addiction. This may indicate that respondents are more likely to believe fake stories that align with existing societal concerns, such as the negative effects of video games. Similarly, only 30.3% correctly identified the story about young candidates in Irish elections, highlighting a potential lack of engagement or interest in political topics, which might also explain the relatively high rate of incorrect and missing responses in this category.

The difficulty in differentiating real and fake news is evident in categories such as "Irish influencers promoting harmful diet products," where only 37.6% of respondents correctly identified it as fake. This result might reflect the likelihood of such stories in today’s influencer-driven culture, where the promotion of questionable products is not uncommon. Similarly, the real news about social media's link to depression among teenage girls had a correct identification rate of 50.5%, indicating some awareness of this widely discussed issue. Overall, the data highlights the variability in the ability to discern real from fake news, with respondents showing greater scepticism towards health and safety-related claims compared to technology and political stories.

The study indicates that filters for photos and videos are the most commonly used tools, with 61.5% of adolescents reporting their use. The findings highlight the growing usage of digital tools among adolescents, revealing both opportunities and challenges. Additionally, the study shows an increasing interest in more sophisticated technologies, such as image generators and deepfakes, with 35.8% of adolescents stating they have experimented with these tools. As adolescents engage with technologies like personalised feeds and deepfakes, regulatory efforts such as Coimisiún na Meán become more crucial. These regulations focus on ensuring that these platforms function responsibly, protecting users from harmful content and fostering accountability.

Participants generally show a good grasp of basic digital safety concepts. However, their confidence decreases when it comes to more complex technological issues. These areas necessitate comprehensive and up-to-date media literacy training. Many respondents reported moderate confidence in spotting fake content or manipulated news, highlighting the need for targeted educational initiatives to enhance their online skills, especially in identifying deepfakes and misleading narratives in the age of artificial intelligence.

Open-ended responses allowed participants to express their understanding and awareness of misinformation and artificial intelligence. These responses showcased a wide range of comprehension, from basic definitions and misunderstandings to more nuanced perspectives on AI's abilities and limitations. This diversity highlights the need for education to cultivate a more profound and accurate grasp of AI, especially concerning its ethical implications, technical underpinnings, and societal effects. The findings indicate that focused efforts are necessary to close knowledge gaps and correct misconceptions about this innovative technology.

Regarding the ability to distinguish between fake and real headlines, the findings show that respondents had varying levels of success in identifying real versus fake headlines, with accuracy levels differing significantly by topic. 

While participants were sceptical of sensational headlines, such as the false headline about "Wi-Fi causing brain damage" (51.4% correct), they found it more challenging to identify fake stories like "Gaming Console Linked to Violence" (27.5% correct). Real headlines, such as "Social Media-Linked Depression," were recognised more accurately (50.5%), suggesting a better awareness of commonly discussed issues. However, confusion persisted with ambiguous real stories like "Global Climate Strike" (40.4% correct), highlighting difficulties in interpreting less clear headlines. These findings underscore the necessity of improving media literacy to enhance critical evaluation skills and decrease susceptibility to misinformation. This is a crucial skill for children and young people because, through the lens of media framing theory (Scheufele, 1999), the way information is presented or "framed" influences audience attitudes toward specific topics. In other words, misinformation, especially when it has sensational features, can affect how children and young people perceive and internalise misleading information.

This study suggests that influencer culture has a limited impact on how adolescents perceive themselves and their emotional ties, but it greatly influences the type of content they engage with. Although adolescents enjoy watching influencer videos and photos, they often take a passive approach, such as commenting or creating content for the specific influencer. This trend reflects a broader influencer culture emphasising visual appeal and entertainment rather than active participation. The findings indicate that adolescents view influencers more as entertainment sources than as personal role models with whom they can connect on a deeper level. The study reveals that teenagers primarily interact with influencers' content for entertainment, with little emotional engagement or interaction. While influencers shape trends in adolescent culture, this study found that participants reported lower interest in the role of influencers on self-identity and fostering active participation is relatively minimal. This can be explained by the uses and gratification theory of media consumption (Korhan, & Ersoy, 2016), which why that participants tend to engage with media passively, viewing influencers as distant entertainers rather than actively interacting with them.

Participants indicated significantly higher adoption rates for practical tools, such as filters, virtual assistants, and spell-check features, which are popular due to their immediate utility and ease of use. In contrast, tools perceived as more innovative, such as image generators, are less popular regarding user acceptance and integration into daily routines. This suggests a clear preference for established technologies over those requiring more user adaptation and familiarity.

Adolescents demonstrate a relatively acceptable understanding of basic online safety skills, such as appropriately managing passwords and sharing information. However, there are notable gaps in their advanced digital literacy, particularly when it comes to identifying technology-based misinformation. These observations underscore the importance of implementing educational programs that emphasise advanced media literacy, AI literacy, and critical analysis skills. Such programs should be designed in participatory and experiential formats to foster deeper learning and practical application.

The findings underscore the importance of integrating updated media literacy into school curricula, aligning it with the latest media technology trends, particularly those related to artificial intelligence. By doing so, educational programs can better equip adolescents to navigate the rapidly evolving media landscape safely and effectively.