Case Study 2
Case Study 2: A Well-Meaning Post With Incorrect Facts
Scenario
A family friend shares a social media post warning parents about a popular app children use.
The post claims the app is collecting sensitive personal data and making it publicly
accessible. The tone is concerned and protective, urging parents to “spread the word.”
A child sees the post and becomes anxious, recognizing the app as one he/she uses
regularly. The article includes some real features of the app but exaggerates the risks and
ignores recent updates that addressed privacy concerns. The friend who shared the post
acted out of genuine concern, believing the information to be accurate.
The child is now unsure what to believe. The message feels urgent, the source is trusted,
and the information contains some truth.
Why does this post feel persuasive even though it is inaccurate?
What emotions does the post activate in the child?
How might fear-based responses affect the child’s ability to think clearly?
Sample Parent Responses
Less Helpful Response:
“That’s ridiculous. People believe anything they see online.”
Why this can backfire:
It dismisses the concern, shames belief, and misses an opportunity to model thoughtful
evaluation.
More Supportive Response:
“I can see why that would worry you. Let’s look at what the app actually collects now and
check a couple of reliable sources together.”
Why this helps:
It validates emotion, slows the process, and demonstrates how to verify claims without
escalating fear.