Grantees
The Reboot Foundation supports projects and researchers working on issues related to critical thinking.
Project: Strengthening Critical Thinking in Vulnerable Youth
Grantees: The Reboot Foundation has partnered with Square Media, a Paris-based non-profit organization, to support an intensive media literacy and critical thinking training program targeting vulnerable, unemployed youth in France. Square Media delivers structured workshops to young “NEETs” (those Not in Education, Employment, or Training) in low-income, highly diverse communities such as Montfermeil and Clichy-sous-Bois. The program aims to equip these young adults—many of whom navigate a digital ecosystem dominated by social media algorithms—with essential cognitive tools to recognize media manipulation, evaluate online sources, and understand their own psychological biases. Through interactive modules covering concepts like filter bubbles, confirmation bias, fallacies, and deepfakes, Square Media seeks to foster reflective skepticism, reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories, and empower participants to make informed decisions in a democratic society.
Research: Does Categorization Training Improve Critical Thinking?
Grantees: Dr. Ben Motz, University of Indiana, studies the relationships between cognitive theories of human learning, psychological theories of student engagement, and what goes on in college classes. Dr. Emily Fyfe, University of Indiana, researches the construction and organization of knowledge, with an emphasis on how children think, learn, and solve problems in mathematics.
Findings: While teaching critical thinking is a vital educational priority, many existing instructional methods are overly complex and difficult for teachers to integrate into standard curricula. To address this barrier, Drs. Motz and Fyfe investigated a focused, inductive learning model – commonly known as learning by example – to determine if practicing fallacy and bias identification improves overall reasoning. Across two studies, participants who repeatedly categorized example scenarios exhibiting various logical fallacies and biases showed measurable gains on delayed, open-ended critical thinking assessments. These findings demonstrate that essential critical thinking skills can be effectively taught using accessible, psychologically grounded methods, offering educators a practical and scalable tool to strengthen students’ defenses against misinformation and fake news.
Research: The Genetic Invincibility Effect of Genetic Testing
Grantee: Dr. Woo-Kyoung Ahn, Yale University, studies higher-level reasoning and how people learn and represent concepts and causal relations, how causal explanations shape our thinking processes.
Findings: Direct-to-consumer genetic testing can create dangerous cognitive blind spots when results are negative. Across three studies (N = 2,103), individuals told they lacked a genetic predisposition to Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) irrationally discounted the risks of alcohol misuse and avoided treatment—a cognitive error that standard industry disclaimers failed to correct. Researchers found this issue stems from a failure in causal reasoning: ignoring that the physical harms of symptoms remain identical regardless of whether genes or environment caused them. By providing targeted critical thinking education on this causal logic principle, researchers successfully eliminated participants’ false sense of immunity, demonstrating how sound reasoning directly prevents irrational health behaviors.
Research: Deliberation and Intuition in Decision-Making
Grantee: Dr. Tania Lombrozo, Princeton University, researches questions about learning, reasoning, and decision-making using the empirical tools of experimental psychology and the conceptual tools of analytic philosophy.
Findings: While deliberative analysis and critical thinking are essential for sound decision-making, people frequently bypass careful reflection in favor of intuitive “gut” reactions. Across five pre-registered experiments, researchers found this avoidance stems from a belief that intuitive choices reflect greater personal authenticity. When authenticity is prioritized, individuals actively favor intuition over deliberate reasoning and reject expert human or algorithmic advice—regardless of decision complexity, cognitive effort, or reliability. By demonstrating how the pursuit of perceived authenticity creates a barrier to analytical thought, this research underscores a key imperative: cultivating effective critical thinking requires helping decision-makers recognize that rigorous deliberation and personal authenticity are not mutually exclusive.
Research: Media Reception in the Age of Disinformation
Grantee: Manon Berriche is a postdoctoral researcher in sociology at médialab Sciences Po in Paris. She specializes in digital sociology and has had several research experiences in cognitive psychology.
Findings: While alarmist narratives often exaggerate the threat of online misinformation, effectively combating falsehoods requires applying rigorous critical thinking to how we study them. Drawing on big data and reception research, scholars identified six widespread misconceptions regarding misinformation’s prevalence, circulation, and behavioral impact—challenging the assumptions that falsehoods spread faster than truth or that online engagement equates to genuine belief. These findings demonstrate that overcoming digital deception demands strong analytical reasoning and methodological precision rather than uncritical panic. By deconstructing flawed premises around media consumption, this research highlights how evidence-based critical inquiry is essential for accurately understanding information ecosystems and designing effective, targeted interventions against actual cognitive vulnerabilities.
