Nudging students to fact-check GenAI outputs: Perspectives from dual process theory and digital literacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47989/ir31iConf64183Keywords:
Generative AI, Digital nudging, Dual process theory, Misinformation, AI in educationAbstract
Introduction. Drawing from dual process theory, this study explores the acceptability of digital fact-checking nudges among GenAI users within educational contexts. The study examines differences in the perception towards GenAI fact-checking nudges with heuristic (System 1) or systematic (System 2) mechanisms, where heuristic refers to quick shortcuts and systematic to careful reasoning. This study also examines varying levels of digital literacy in GenAI usage, influencing learners' perceptions of GenAI and their responsiveness to digital nudges.
Method. The study developed digital nudge vignettes tailored to educational settings and assessed their acceptability and perceived effectiveness. Data was collected from 300 university students through an online survey.
Analysis. Quantitative analysis employed descriptive and t-tests comparing nudge perception between users with different levels of digital literacy.
Results. Overall, the level of digital literacy was relatively high among student users. This indicates the familiarity and high tendency that GenAI users can utilise GenAI for learning. System 1 nudges were perceived more positively than System 2 nudges, and digitally literate users showed more favourable attitudes toward nudges.
Conclusion(s). This study highlights the value of heuristic digital nudges and advocates for low-effort, seamlessly integrated interventions that foster fact-checking behaviors among learners when using GenAI for learning.
References
Bhuiyan, M. M., Zhang, K., Vick, K., Horning, M. A., & Mitra, T. (2018). FeedReflect: A tool for nudging users to assess news credibility on twitter. Companion of the 2018 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing,
Blackburn, S. (2016). Dual process theory. In A Dictionary of Philosophy.
Chaiken, S. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended Thought: Limits of Awareness, Intention, and Control/Guilford.
Chaiken, S., & Ledgerwood, A. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 1, 246-266.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(3), 460.
Chen, K., Tallant, A. C., & Selig, I. (2024). Exploring generative AI literacy in higher education: student adoption, interaction, evaluation and ethical perceptions. Information and Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-10-2023-0160
Chu-Ke, C., & Dong, Y. (2024). Misinformation and Literacies in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Overview and a Call for Future Research. Emerging Media, 2(1), 70-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241240285
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
Ferrucci, P., & Hopp, T. (2023). Let’s intervene: how platforms can combine media literacy and self-efficacy to fight fake news. Communication and the Public, 8(4), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473231203081
Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jung, J. Y., & Mellers, B. A. (2016). American attitudes toward nudges. Judgment & Decision Making, 11(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500007592
Koban, K., & Banks, J. (2023). Dual-Process Theory in Human-Machine Communication. In (pp. 302-309).
Kotsis, K. T. (2025). ChatGPT and DeepSeek evaluate one another for science education. EIKI Journal of Effective Teaching Methods, 3(1).
Łabuz, M., & Nehring, C. (2024). Information apocalypse or overblown fears—what AI mis‐ and disinformation is all about? Shifting away from technology toward human reactions. Politics & Policy, 52(4), 874-891. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12617
Lim, K. K., & Lee, C. S. (2022). Nudging learning behaviour: A systematic review. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(1), 744-746. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.712
Lim, K. K., & Lee, C. S. (2024). Acceptability of Nudge in Digital Learning Environment. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 564-569.
Molerov, D., Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Nagel, M.-T., Brückner, S., Schmidt, S., & Shavelson, R. J. (2020). Assessing university students' critical online reasoning ability: A conceptual and assessment framework with preliminary evidence. Frontiers in Education,
Ng, W. (2012). Can we teach digital natives digital literacy? Computers & Education, 59(3), 1065-1078.
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Nudging social media toward accuracy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 152-164.
Reddy, P., Sharma, B., & Chaudhary, K. (2020). Digital literacy: A review of literature. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT), 11(2), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.20200701.oa1
Reynolds, J. P., Archer, S., Pilling, M., Kenny, M., Hollands, G. J., & Marteau, T. M. (2019). Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment. Social Science & Medicine, 236, 112395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112395
Reynolds, J. P., Pilling, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2018). Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies. Social Science & Medicine, 218, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.037
Shoaib, M. R., Wang, Z., Ahvanooey, M. T., & Zhao, J. (2023). Deepfakes, misinformation, and disinformation in the era of frontier AI, generative AI, and large AI models. 2023 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA),
Sultanbayeva, G., Akynbekova, A., Belgarayeva, A., Buyenbayeva, Z., & Ashimova, A. (2024). Digital Literacy as a Tool for Identifying Fake News: A Comparative Analysis Using the Example of European and Kazakh Media. Journal of Information Policy, 15. https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.15.2025.0001
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). People prefer system 2 nudges (kind of). Duke Law Journal, 66(1), 121-168. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44155309
Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R., & Roggers, T. (2017). On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions. Nature Human Behaviour 1(7), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0130
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, 23, 195-211.
van Gestel, L. C., Adriaanse, M. A., & de Ridder, D. T. D. (2021). Who accepts nudges? Nudge acceptability from a self-regulation perspective. PLoS one, 16(12), e0260531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260531
Walczak, K., & Cellary, W. (2025). Navigating Risks: Inaccuracies, Bias, Disinformation, and Privacy in Educational AI. In Teaching and Learning in the Age of Generative AI (pp. 163-194). Routledge.
Yang, J. Z., Dong, X., & Liu, Z. (2021). Systematic Processing of COVID-19 Information: Relevant Channel Beliefs and Perceived Information Gathering Capacity as Moderators. Science Communication, 44(1), 60-85. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211044781
Zhang, M., & Yang, X. (2025). Google or ChatGPT: Who is the better helper for university students. Education and Information Technologies, 30(4), 5177-5198.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tran Mai Chi Nguyen, Chei Sian Lee
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
