Do scientists think they’ve found a cure for misophonia? No. Here’s what is happening.
Misinformation about misophonia is omnipresent.
With awareness and research about misophonia growing significantly, publishers compete to get clicks from people looking to learn more about it.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
~Carl Sagan
We are increasingly bombarded with incredible or unusual claims regarding science and this is true of media coverage about misophonia and other related conditions. Frequently, we see headlines about “a recent study proves” or “scientists have found the cause” or “this common item prevents” or similar claims.
However, the more incredible the headline is, the more likely that it is getting the science quite incorrect. Sensationalistic headlines that spur an emotional reaction get attention, whether they are true or not.
How are we to know what to believe or not?
Solid information literacy for evaluating remarkable or surprising claims may not be a part of our internet scrolling routines, but should be. This article covers a few easy and helpful ways to help anyone understand the context and reliability of seemingly surprising news about science.
Let’s take this recent headline about misophonia:
“Scientists think they've found the cure for misophonia. Do you have the brain disorder?“
This is indeed an attention-getting headline leading a recent article by Cassidy Morrison in the Daily Mail, a UK-based publication that is well-known. Several people have emailed us at soQuiet to ask us about it. So it is causing notable responses, in our experience.
But, what is this headline even talking about? Is it true? How do we find out?
soQuiet Board member, Michelle Hawkins, has a Master of Library and Information Sciences [MLIS] degree and teaches classes on information literacy and database research for teens. She recommended a few simple steps called the SIFT Method to help us evaluate this headline and article.
The SIFT Method was created by Mike Caulfield of Washington State University and can be a quick guide to assessing remarkable or surprising claims in the media. Anyone can do these easily. The little extra time it might take can have a huge effect in the long term by helping us understand if something is likely accurate or not so we are not led astray by false, biased, or manipulative information we encounter.
S.I.F.T. stands for:
• S - Stop
• I - Investigate the Source
• F - Find Better Coverage
• T - Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to the Original Context
Let’s take the Daily Mail article headline above and apply the SIFT Method.
S - Stop
Doesn’t the headline above sound like a remarkable claim; that scientists have “found a cure for misophonia”? It is an extraordinary claim.
When encountering something that is shocking, leading us to an immediate emotional reaction of anger, sadness, surprise, or otherwise, we need to STOP.
Take a moment to recognize your emotional reaction as a sign that maybe what we are seeing is designed to cause “engagement” instead of to communicate something factual. Online content is often measured by engagement metrics such as reshares, comments, and likes, not by truthfulness.
“Ask yourself whether you know the website or source of the information, and what the reputation of both the claim and the website is. If you don’t have that information, use the other (SIFT Method) moves to get a sense of what you’re looking at. Don’t read it or share media until you know what it is,” says Caulfield.
What do we know about the publication, The Daily Mail, without any research? Everyone’s knowledge of this publication might vary and people in the UK, where the Daily Mail is created, might have a greater general knowledge than others.
My own personal knowledge, as someone living in the US, is that I recognize the name of the publication and am unsure whether it is considered a reliable source.
These articles are mainly covering one recent study,”Misophonia symptom severity is linked to impaired flexibility and heightened rumination” by Vivien K. Black, Kenneth J.D. Allen, Hashir Aazh, Sheri L. Johnson, and Mercede Erfanian which was published in the British Journal of Psychology in September, 2025. More on that below.
Full disclosure: For the sake of this article, I am going to act as though I am not familiar with the actual research paper the Daily Mail article references. The research study referenced is one that was funded by a soQuiet Student Research Grant, a point that will be mentioned later, too. Most people will not have had this advantage.
I - Investigate the Source
Is the Daily Mail a good source of information? Let’s do a few simple things to find out.
First, we can check a resource like AllSides.com to see if they have any information on this publication’s biases towards a particular audience and if they are considered to have any noteworthy methods or positions that would help us get some context.
AllSide notes that the Daily Mail is considered to engage in sensationalism, and finds the publication does not have a neutral bias, based on a very recent poll of 26,771 people.
Another similar reference site, Media Bias and Fact Check, rates the Daily Mail as being Low on factual reporting by failing to fact check their stories, publishing false information and opinions as facts, and more.
A simple online search also led us to a Wikipedia discussion about using the Daily Mail as a source of information for citing in wiki articles. The determination was: “Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.”
While none of this proves that the Daily Mail is or is not a good source, it begins to paint a picture about this publication and its potentially tenuous reliability for factuality and impartial reporting.
Some other easy things to help get a better idea of a publication’s trustworthiness include:
• Looking for a page on their site that explains their editorial standards
• Seeing if they cite the sources of their statements
• Overly dramatic or absolute language (“groundbreaking,” “cure,” “proves”) can indicate a focus on engagement over journalism.
• Seeing what other, well-regarded source might say about the publication
F - Find Better Coverage
“Sometimes you don’t care about the particular article or video that reaches you. You care about the claim the article is making. You want to know if it is true or false. [...] In this case, your best strategy may be to ignore the source that reached you, and look for trusted reporting or analysis on the claim,” advises Caulfield.
Are there other news reports about the study which is the topic of the Daily Mail article? What do other publications say about it?
This study was also covered by a few other publications.
For example, here is an article about it from NeuroscienceNews.com. While we don’t know if NeuroscienceNews is a reliable source either, it is clear right away that this article frames the findings of the study very differently.
“Misophonia Might Be a Brain Regulation Disorder”
Already, we can see that this source is avoiding making any absolute statements, using the word “might” in the headline. We can also do a quick search of this article for the word “cure”. The word “cure” is nowhere in the NeuroscienceNews story.
If the subject study did indeed mention a cure, wouldn’t that be covered in other articles since it’s incredibly important information if it is true?
Another news article about this study comes from PsyPost.com.
The headline states:
“‘Only the tip of the iceberg:’ Misophonia may reflect deeper psychological realities”
We also don’t know the reliability of this website’s reporting, so a quick look into these two online publications could be helpful.
But even without doing that, it does seem like the PsyPost headline is phrased in a way to get people to have an emotional reaction [“Only the tip of the iceberg” sounds a little scary and makes us want to see more info] and click on a link to read it.
However, the PsyPost article also never mentions a “cure” and, excepting its questionable headline, has a fairly neutral tone that doesn’t seem overly sensationalistic.
We don’t know if these three news articles are stating something factual about the overall study and its findings. While the Daily Mail touted, questionably, a “cure" for misophonia, the other two are implying that this research paper may, or does, say that misophonia is a brain regulation disorder.
But, does the study actually prove this?
T - Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media Back to the Original Context
To the credit of all three articles about this study that we’ve found, they do actually link to the subject research paper itself. And, to the credit of the researchers, it is not behind a paywall.
Let’s look at the original source: the actual research paper!
➜ [You can read it and/or download it here]
Any news article about a research study is likely to be interpreting the actual methods and findings of the study, sometimes getting things woefully incorrect. So, before we take the word of a podcaster, blogger, or journalist, why not see what the research paper actually says.
Quick aside about reading science papers from a non-scientist
Reading medical or scientific research papers from peer-reviewed academic journals might seem a little intimidating at first [it was to me] but it becomes easier once you are able to get the full text and know how papers are typically structured .
Many research papers are behind the paywalls of academic walls, but increasingly peer-reviewed study papers are being made available as “open source” so anyone can read them. There are numerous ways to get a copy of a paper that is behind a paywall, such as writing the researchers directly via email or asking your local librarian if they have access to the text of the paper.
It only takes a few minutes to read the section at the beginning of almost any research paper called the Abstract, and then the section at the end called Conclusion or Discussion.
These sections will cover the main points of why the study was undertaken, how it was conducted generally, and any conclusions or issues that the study encountered. These sections are not typically overly technical or the processes can be understood conceptually, at least. For a non-academic reader, it might be fine to just stick with those sections, skipping the middle part with, often, technical information on data collection and analysis.
Doing just this won’t take more than a couple of minutes typically and can cover most of what the general public needs to know about the study.
Does the paper in question talk about a cure? What about “the tip of the iceberg” headline?
When reading published research, a typical person might not know to keep some important points in mind when understanding the study it’s about.
Of course, we also need to determine if the published research paper itself shows signs of being reliable or not.
These might include:
Journal Reliability. Look around to see if there are online reviews of the professionalism of the journal itself. Many academic journals have high standards for peer review and content, while some journals that have impressive-sounding titles are more concerned with profit and have low standards.
The paper we are talking about in this example was published in The British Journal of Psychology.
A quick search online seeking information on the reliability of this journal indicates that it is a professional journal with high editorial standards and a long history in the academic community under the umbrella of the British Psychological Society, a prominent and established professional organization.
Check the paper for sample size [the number of people who were study participants] and the type of control group.
The sample size of a research study is the number of people who participated as subjects being studied. This number is often stated as “n=” in science. So, a study with “n=78” had 78 people as research participants.
A small sample size makes drawing conclusions tougher because trends are harder to determine with not much to observe in the first place.
For example, some studies called “case studies” typically have a sample size of one person. That is too small really to draw any significant conclusions from. A slightly larger “pilot study” might have a dozen or so people. This is, also, maybe too small to indicate any notable findings but perhaps just enough to show trends that might warrant another study with a larger sample size.
Some major studies, called longitudinal studies, often take place over years or decades and can include thousands of participants,or more.
The paper in our example says it had a sample size of 149 [n=149] people. For an early study on the topic of cognitive flexibility and rumination with misophonia, 149 is a not-unusually small sample size but also not so large that the data are going to show stronger concepts. Other, later studies on this topic would likely do well to expand the sample size to see if the findings of this study are repeated.
It’s also good to see what kind of control group [study participants who were not given the tested criteria] the study had as a base line for comparison to the group of people who were given the factors of the study that are being examined.
Examine limitations and authors’ cautionary statements. Also check for conflicts of interest by the researchers.
The Limitations section of a paper will state any known or perceived obstacles or issues with the study itself. This section is typically towards the end of the paper above the Conclusions/Discussion section, if it has one. Good science papers will frequently have a section which states what could have been done better/differently in the study and which future studies of the same nature should consider improving.
Also, most papers will clearly state, also towards the end, if the researchers have any conflicts of interest that might influence the study. These are usually an professional or financial relationships the authors might have which would cause them to have a bias.
The paper that these articles are talking about, the one titled ”Misophonia symptom severity is linked to impaired flexibility and heightened rumination,” has a section on the limitations of the study and lists six key points that, in hindsight, are worth considering when viewing the paper and the conclusions it arrived at.
We can also always remember that a single medical research study almost never finds anything definitive. It’s just one study. Numerous repeats of the study by other researchers with other participants with, perhaps, improved methods are needed to start determining any notable trends in the topic. So, look for other studies researching the same hypothesis that might exist.
In this case, there aren’t any other notable papers on this specific topic yet. So, even though the results of this study are interesting, more studies are needed to see if its findings are repeatable or not.
Compare claims in the paper versus how media headlines present them.
In general, any news headline that makes a bold, definitive claim about a “recent study” should be taken with a huge grain of salt and looked into further before sharing the post or making changes to your life based on those headlines.
So, after all of the above explanations, let’s return to our original question about whether the news articles about this paper match the statements of the study paper itself.
Before even reading the study paper, we can search the page for the word “cure.” The paper never mentions the word “cure.” Unless the paper uses a different word [it doesn’t], then this paper says nothing about a cure. So, the Daily Mail headline is not reporting the paper’s contents factually.
By reading the Conclusion of the paper, a section that is only one paragraph, we can see that nothing that the researchers found in this study is definitive. There is no topic even relatively similar to a “cure” or cause of misophonia. The authors use cautious language— words such as “might” and “may”— to make it clear that the results of this study present potential possibilities that could be investigated more by others in future studies. They conclude by suggesting that more research on the topic of the study could lead to some approaches to treatments.
If we compare all of this, we might come to the conclusion that the headlines we found about this study are not especially accurate. The Daily Mail headline is wholly incorrect about there being a “cure” for misophonia mentioned in this paper. The PsyPost headline also could be viewed as making less-egregious-but-still-concerning claims that this study found information about misophonia that is “the tip of the iceberg” regarding its nature.
The actual body text of these news articles seem to be a bit better, but still questionable, about the facts of this study and its resulting data.
“There’s a theme that runs through all of these moves: they are about reconstructing the necessary context to read, view, or listen to digital content effectively.” ~Caulfield
While all of this sounds like a lot of work, it’s actually a fairly quick process once the concepts and steps become routine.
In most cases, a few minutes of searching around to find valid information on whether a news article about science is trustworthy or not are well spent. Finding the study that is being referenced and giving the opening and closing sections a quick read will go a long way and take less time than it takes to drink a cup of coffee.
Limitations
This article doesn’t cover all—or even most—of the possible methods one could use for determining whether a popular news publication accurately reflects the contents of a peer-reviewed academic research paper. Readers are encouraged to continue learning about the topic of information literacy and the pitfalls of the public reporting of science.
Conclusion
In the end, understanding what a study actually tested, how it went about doing so, what it truly concluded, and the context within which it was done can really help us not believe or share false, even harmful, information with others.
The media coverage of this paper had some significant issues, especially in the phrasing of the headlines leading some prominent articles.
Also, this study is the first on this topic—possible correlations among misophonia, inflexibility, and rumination—, it had a smallish sample size, and some self-reported limitations that should be considered. So, a reader could assume that more studies are needed to follow this one to see if its results also appear in future research before stronger conclusions can be drawn. It definitely doesn’t report any cures for misophonia and its conclusions about the nature of misophonia could be seen as novel or interesting, but also very preliminary.
The false claims of news headlines we discussed caused people who struggle with misophonia to experience false hope and unnecessary worry. We know they did because they wrote our organization in a tizzy to get more information.
We wrote to the author of the Daily Mail article to ask that they change or retract their patently misleading headline.
In closing, we return to the quote that started this article; the one by Carl Sagan. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Without the latter, the former should warrant a health amount of skepticism. Even a cursory stroll through the SIFT path could help you separate fact from fiction or something in between.
ㅡ
Conflicts of Interest
The author acknowledges that the academic paper being used as an example in this article was funded by a student research grant from soQuiet, a nonprofit organization that he founded.
CITATIONS:
Black, V. K., Allen, K. J., Aazh, H., Johnson, S. L., & Erfanian, M. (2025). Misophonia symptom severity is linked to impaired flexibility and heightened rumination. British Journal of Psychology, 00, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70025
Caulfield, M. (2019) SIFT (the four moves), Hapgood Blog. Available at: https://hapgood.us/2019/06/19/sift-the-four-moves/ (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
Dolan, E.W. (2025) ‘only the tip of the iceberg:’ Misophonia may reflect deeper psychological realities, PsyPost. Available at: https://www.psypost.org/only-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-misophonia-may-reflect-deeper-psychological-realities/ (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
Misophonia might be a brain regulation disorder (2025) Neuroscience News. Available at: https://neurosciencenews.com/misophonia-cognitive-emotional-flexibility-29770/ (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
Morrison, C. (2025) Scientists think they’ve found the cure for misophonia. do you have the brain disorder?, Daily Mail Online. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-15166699/Scientists-think-theyve-cure-misophonia-you-brain-disorder.html (Accessed: 10 October 2025).
Various (2023) Reliable sources/noticeboard/archive 220, Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC (Accessed: 10 October 2025).