Mutant Flowers (Fukushima Daisies Evaluation Bias)
In Caulfield and Wineburg’s Fukushima flowers example, students sometimes accepted a striking photo as proof of toxicity or dismissed it as fake. Both responses skipped investigation of what the real image actually showed.
THE IDEA
Mutant Flowers
The Fukushima flowers example doesn’t represent a merely hypothetical issue. Sam’s research group found that only 20 percent of students using more common approaches to information literacy found the photo dubious, whereas 40 percent considered it “strong evidence” that the region around Fukushima was toxic. Most of those students were not getting off the page at all; instead, they were engaging in that “look deeply at the page” sort of behavior this book warns against.
That said, in both Sam’s work and work Mike did with the same example with first-year college students, many of the “correct” responses were not so great either. “It’s a random picture on the internet—FAKE!” seemed to be a prominent school of thought. Point well taken. But in this case, that turned out to be wrong. The photo of mutant daisies was real. Very few people got to the heart of the matter: a real photo that wasn’t nearly as compelling as it first appeared.
When to use it
Evaluating viral social media posts that make scientific claims
Assessing the credibility of news articles during a breaking story
Determining the validity of visual evidence in academic research
Teaching information literacy skills to students
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Fukushima Mutant Daisies
A real photo of mutated daisies near Fukushima was presented to students. 40% took it as strong evidence of toxicity without verification, while many others dismissed it as fake. Few students investigated the actual source or context to make a well-reasoned evaluation.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a time you accepted a compelling online image or story as true without checking its source. What bias influenced that decision?
How can you develop the habit of 'getting off the page' to verify information before forming a conclusion?
Why might both accepting and rejecting information without proper evaluation be harmful to critical thinking?
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Verified How to Think Straight, Get Duped Less, and Make Better Decisions about What to Believe Online (Mike Caulfield, Sam Wineburg)