Related Concepts

Authority & Credibility – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing; Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing; Research Deepfakes & Misinformation; The CRAAP Test –  Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose

What is the SIFT Method?

The SIFT Method, developed by Mike Caulfield (2019), a research scientist at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, provides a heuristic for engaging in information evaluation.

SIFT stands for:

1. Stop
2. Investigate the source
3. Find better coverage
4. Trace claims to their original context

1. Stop

In his SIFT method, Mike Caulfield emphasizes that the first step in assessing the credibility of a source is to stop and pause before reacting. This concept aligns with Viktor Frankl’s idea that “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.“

While Frankl’s reflection focuses on personal agency and existential freedom—rooted in his experiences in Nazi concentration camps—Caulfield focuses on pausing in the face of new information. Caulfied argues this practice is crucial whether the information supports your preconceptions or challenges your beliefs.

For instance, during the debate on September 10, 2023, former President Donald Trump claimed that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating dogs and cats. Such a statement naturally evokes strong emotions. Before reacting or sharing this information, though, it’s important to stop and ask:

• Could the speaker be repeating disinformation unknowingly?
• Could the speaker be intentionally using sophistry (aka rhetrickery) or pathos to persuade, appealing to emotions?
• Does the speaker provide credible evidence to substantiate their claim?
• What is the reputation of the person making this statement?

In this scenario, it’s important to recognize that even prominent figures may spread disinformation, either unintentionally due to insufficient information literacy or intentionally through rhetorical appeals aimed at persuading an audience without regard for the truth. Regardless of the speaker’s intent—whether they genuinely believe the misinformation or are using it strategically—the spread of such claims underscores the need to critically evaluate information before accepting or sharing it.

By stopping and reflecting, you acknowledge that:

• The Claim Might Be Unverified or False: Recognize that the shocking nature of the statement doesn’t guarantee its truthfulness.
• The Speaker’s Intent is Uncertain: Without presuming intent, consider that the speaker might be misinformed or might be deliberately manipulating information for rhetorical effect.
  • If Unknowingly Misinformed: The speaker may lack adequate information literacy skills, causing them to accept and repeat false information without proper verification.
  • If Intentionally Misleading: The speaker might be engaging in sophistry or rhetrickery—using deceptive arguments or persuasive rhetoric to influence the audience, possibly appealing to tribalism or evoking strong emotions (pathos) to rally support or sow division.
• Emotional Impact on You: Recognize your own emotional response and how it might affect your judgment. Strong emotions can cloud critical thinking, making it more likely to accept or spread misinformation.

This step emphasizes the importance of not jumping to conclusions based on emotionally charged statements. It highlights the need to critically assess both the information and the potential motivations behind its dissemination.

2. Investigate the Source

After pausing, take time to examine the credibility of the source:

1. Engage in rhetorical reasoning by analyzing the rhetorical situation: Who is the author? What’s their purpose? Who is the intended audience?
2. Do a CRAAP Test — Check the Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. 
3. Check the author’s credentials and expertise in the field. Note, even if a person is an expert in one domain, they may not be in another.
4. Consider potential biases, especially conflicts of interest.
5. Identify the authority of the source. Are claims substantiated by multiple sources? Is the information peer-reviewed? Is the information research-based? If so, have the source’s authors accounted for the conventions and epistemological assumptions that constrain knowledge claims in the work of methodological communities?

To return to the debate example, the source of the claim is former president Donald Trump, who is known for making controversial statements. According to PolitiFact, a nonpartisan fact-checking organization, out of 1,000 rated statements by Trump, approximately 76% were found to be Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire, with the median rating being False (Herman, Jacobson, Romo, & Amy, 2024).

According to PolitiFact, this is a significantly higher proportion of false statements compared to other politicians who have been fact-checked by the organization. PolitiFact notes that Trump has frequently disseminated misinformation on various topics, including immigration, elections, and public health — or the birther conspiracy regarding Obama. For instance, he has previously made false claims about immigrants, such as suggesting that the Mexican government deliberately sends criminals to the United States, which was rated Pants on Fire by PolitiFact.

Based on Trump’s history of making unsubstantiated or inaccurate claims, readers are wise to verify information before accepting his statements as fact, such as the claim that immigrants were eating pets. Given this track record, it’s important to consider:

• Potential Biases and Motivations: Is it possible Trump may have political motivations for making such claims, especially during a debate where appealing to certain voter sentiments could be advantageous?
• Purpose and Intended Audience: Who is the audience for this misinformation? Do they have confirmation bias?
• Credibility of Evidence Provided: Former President Trump mentioned that he saw the claim about people eating pets on television, but there is no verifiable evidence or credible news reports supporting the allegation. Given TV has some pretty outrageous stuff on it, is this a credible source?

3. Find Better Coverage

After evaluating the source and finding it lacking in credibility, the next step is to seek out reliable and authoritative information on the topic. This involves employing strategic searching techniques to locate trustworthy sources that can provide accurate coverage of the issue.

• Search Gated Content: For sources published in peer-reviewed journals, utilize library resources to access scholarly articles on immigration, cultural practices, and community reports. While these may require subscriptions, libraries often provide access to databases like JSTOR, Academic Search Premier, or ProQuest.
• Search the Open Web
  • Search AI tools. Tools like Semantic Scholar, Consensus, and Undermine search database of millions of research papers.
    Reputable News Outlets: For sources published in the media, review reports from reliable news outlets. In this case, major media organizations have debunked the claim and traced its origins to unsubstantiated social media rumors. Look for reports from established organizations such as Reuters, Associated Press, BBC, NPR, or The New York Times.
  • Fact-Checking Websites: Consult platforms like PolitiFact, Snopes, and FactCheck.org that specialize in investigating and debunking false claims.
  • Community Statements: Seek out official statements from local authorities or community leaders in Springfield.
• Put Sources in Conversation:
  • Compare Information: Analyze how different sources report on a claim. Do they corroborate or contradict each other?
  • Expert Opinions: Consider insights from scholars or experts in immigration studies or Haitian culture.
  • Consensus Building: Look for a general agreement among credible sources.

4. Trace Claims to Their Original Context

Tracing a claim back to its original context involves investigating its origins, how it has been disseminated, and identifying any distortions that may have occurred along the way. This process helps uncover the truth and understand how misinformation can spread.

To return to the presidential debate of 9/10/24 to illustrate this concept, let’s trace the origin of the claim about Haitian immigrants eating pets:

1. Identify the Initial Source:
   • According to the Springfield News-Sun, “A social media post originally from a Springfield Facebook group went viral nationally in recent days. The original poster did not cite first-hand knowledge of an incident. Instead they claimed that their neighbor’s daughter’s friend had lost her cat and found it hanging from a branch at a Haitian neighbor’s home being carved up to be eaten” (Orozco, 2024). Note this article was published several days before the presidential debate.
2. Examine the Spread of the Claim:
   • Amplification by Public Figures: Politicians and influencers, such as Senator JD Vance and Senator Ted Cruz, shared the claim on social media without evidence.
   • Viral Memes and Posts: Memes referencing the baseless claim were shared widely, including by high-profile individuals like Elon Musk and official political party accounts.
3. Investigate Misattributed Incidents:
   • Unrelated Events: An incident in Canton, Ohio, involving a woman arrested for killing and eating a cat was incorrectly linked to Haitian immigrants. Canton Police confirmed the woman was a U.S. citizen with no ties to Haiti.
   • Misused Imagery: Photos of individuals carrying geese or other animals were circulated without context, suggesting wrongdoing by immigrants.
4. Assess Media Reports and Official Responses:
   • Conservative Media Articles: Some outlets published stories with unverified police reports and anonymous calls, which local authorities stated were unsubstantiated.
   • Official Statements: Springfield city officials and law enforcement agencies publicly refuted the claims, emphasizing the lack of evidence.
5. Understand Historical and Cultural Context:
   • Historical Stereotypes: Recognize that false narratives about immigrants harming animals have been used historically to stigmatize and dehumanize communities.
   • Cultural Misunderstandings: Acknowledge that misinterpretations of cultural practices can lead to unfounded allegations.

By reconstructing the claim’s trajectory, you discover that:

• The Claim Is Baseless: There is no credible evidence supporting the allegation.
• Misinformation Spread Rapidly: Social media and public figures played significant roles in amplifying the unverified claim.
• Official Channels Disprove the Rumor: Authorities directly involved have consistently debunked the allegations.

Understanding the original context reveals how easily misinformation can proliferate, especially when amplified by influential individuals and without proper verification. This emphasizes the importance of critically examining the origins of a claim before accepting it as true.