Access, verification, and trust in extreme weather events communication: age and discipline matter

Effective communication of extreme weather events (EWEs) requires understanding how audiences access, evaluate, and respond to information, which is critical for improving science communication strategies on climate-related risks. To examine these processes among young adults, we conducted a structured survey administered to undergraduate students at two Spanish universities (Rey Juan Carlos University and Autonomous University of Madrid). The survey, disseminated online during regular teaching periods, used voluntary participation and collected 746 responses across diverse academic programmes. It comprised multiple-choice and Likert-scale items covering interest in specific EWEs (e.g., intense rainfall, heatwaves, floods), primary modes of information access (intentional search, incidental exposure, or balanced patterns), verification behaviours, perceived prevalence of fake news in both searched and unsolicited content, trust in ten different media channels, and self-assessed ability to detect misinformation. Differences were assessed using descriptive statistics and comparative analysis.

Age-tercile analysis using quantile cuts (18; 18–20; >20) shows stable but informative gradients. Verification frequency (1–5) rises slightly with age (2.99 → 2.96 → 3.05), while event-specific interest (1–4) remains high and broadly flat (3.13 → 3.11 → 3.16). Trust in social platforms increases marginally (1.92 → 2.07 → 2.08), whereas trust in traditional outlets and science-oriented sources stays comparatively stable (traditional 3.28–3.37–3.35; science 4.04–4.09–4.08). Self-reported ability to detect misinformation (1–7) shows a small step-down across terciles (4.79 → 4.71 → 4.66). For access patterns, the share of balanced access (search + incidental) is higher from the middle tercile onward (52.9% → 61.4% → 58.6%), with a corresponding reduction in purely incidental exposure (43.6% → 36.0% → 38.7%), while intentional search only remains low (3.6% → 2.6% → 2.7%). Consistently across terciles, students perceive more fake news in incidental flows than in self-searched content (+1.11, +1.00, +1.18).

Comparing academic disciplines (science vs. communication) reveals clear structural contrasts. Students in scientific programs report higher general interest in EWEs (3.56 vs 3.24) and slightly greater event-specific interest (3.17 vs 3.09), alongside marginally lower verification frequency (2.98 vs 3.03). Self-reported ability to detect misinformation also trends higher in science (≈4.80 vs 4.62). Trust architectures differ markedly: communication students show stronger confidence in traditional media (3.57 vs 3.15), while science lean toward science-oriented sources (4.11 vs 4.00). Trust in social platforms remains low across both groups, though slightly higher in communication (2.05 vs 1.99). These patterns underscore the need for differentiated strategies: technical and data-rich content for science students, and journalistic narrative formats for communication, complemented by platform-specific adaptations to maintain credibility and engagement.

These findings suggest practical actions to improve communication: ensure multi-platform dissemination with consistent core messages; highlight transparent sourcing and authoritative voices; adapt formats by age (visual checklists for younger students, data-rich dashboards for older ones); and tailor content to disciplinary expectations (technical and quantitative for science, journalistic narrative for communication). Aligning formats and channels with audience information habits can enhance comprehension, reduce misinformation, and support informed decision-making during EWEs.