Economic Literacy and Anxiety
Goodbit · May 5, 2026 · 4 min read
Goodbit engagements combine short game-based learning with AI-moderated conversation and measurement. Participants first respond to claims or scenarios, then talk through what surprised them, what felt credible, and what they would repeat. The results below combine those layers: what people knew, what shifted, what held, and what the conversations revealed.
At a glance
- 1,268 Canadian participants completed a monetary-policy and trade-mechanics engagement in February 2026.
- Overall knowledge-claim accuracy came out at 64.6%.
- Belief in the Bank of Canada's role in interest-rate mechanics shifted by +0.335.
- Participants who understood both monetary-policy claims answered the tariff scenario correctly 75.1% of the time, compared with 51.4% among others.
- Cross-domain transfer was about 24 points.
- Anxiety about the Canadian economy decreased through the engagement. Engagement produced reassurance through competence rather than alarm.
- Trust in Canadian financial institutions rose modestly.
- The Bank of Canada-independence scenario remained the structural gap.
- Four participant segments emerged: Protectors, Detectors, Skeptics, and Discriminators.
Summary
Economic misinformation works because complex systems are hard to see. Interest rates, deposit insurance, tariff incidence, and central-bank decisions affect people directly, but the mechanics are often described in ways that feel abstract or evasive.
That creates a communication dilemma. Institutions want to reassure people, but they often do so by simplifying the problem or avoiding the mechanics. The result can be a fragile kind of reassurance: people may feel temporarily calmer while remaining vulnerable to the next misleading explanation.
In February 2026, Goodbit ran a digital monetary-policy and trade-mechanics engagement with 1,268 Canadian participants. The campaign tested whether people could learn key economic mechanics in a short experience, whether that understanding would transfer to adjacent misinformation scenarios, and whether the process would increase or reduce anxiety.
Participants showed meaningful gains in monetary-policy comprehension that transferred across domains. Anxiety declined rather than increased, and trust in Canadian financial institutions rose modestly.
Methodology
Participants completed a structured engagement with three measurement layers: a knowledge battery, a scenario battery, and a contextual battery. The knowledge battery tested understanding of monetary policy, deposit insurance, and tariff incidence. The scenario battery tested whether participants could apply that understanding to related but novel claims. The contextual battery measured trust, anxiety, and confidence.
The field period included an unplanned pause, which created a split in deployment timing. The analysis treated that field condition as part of the campaign context rather than smoothing it away.
The sample came from a paid Canadian research panel, not a probability sample. The results should be read as an impact assessment of the engagement among participants reached through that recruitment channel.
Findings
Overall accuracy on the knowledge claims came out at 64.6%. Belief in the Bank of Canada's role in interest-rate mechanics shifted by +0.335.
The transfer finding was the most important. Participants who understood both monetary-policy claims were much more likely to answer the tariff scenario correctly. Among participants with both monetary-policy claims correct, tariff-scenario accuracy was 75.1%. Among others, it was 51.4%. In the current analysis, that represents about a 24-point cross-domain transfer.
Misinformation does not usually repeat the exact lesson a campaign just taught. It mutates into adjacent claims. A stronger intervention does not only improve recall; it helps people reason through the next misleading story.
The anxiety results challenged a common assumption. Anxiety did not rise after the mechanics were explained. It fell. The decline was strongest among participants who began with the lowest baseline knowledge. Trust in Canadian financial institutions also rose modestly, including measured movement on trust-related items in the post-engagement battery.
The Bank of Canada-independence scenario remained the structural gap. It moved least through the engagement and sits closest to the politically exposed part of the economic-literacy problem.
The conversations and segmentation showed different forms of movement. Protectors, about 46% of participants, used the engagement to build a more stable sense of how the system works. Detectors, about 31%, became better at identifying misleading claims. Skeptics, about 10%, remained cautious about institutions even when they understood more. Discriminators, about 8%, became better at separating one economic mechanism from another.
Those segments show why economic-literacy work cannot treat the public as one audience. Some people need structure. Some need practice applying concepts. Some need to test whether the institution feels credible. Some may remain skeptical but become more precise.
In this context, precision is a meaningful outcome.
Methodology portability
This case study shows that Goodbit can test whether comprehension travels across adjacent domains. That is the difference between teaching a fact and building resistance to the next misleading claim.
For economic communication, this matters because the goal is not simply to make people feel better. It is to make the system legible enough that people can reason through it under pressure.
Complexity is not the enemy. Unexplained complexity is.
About Goodbit
Goodbit is a Canadian engagement and measurement platform for understanding how people think and talk about contested issues. We combine short game-based learning, AI-moderated conversation, and campaign analytics to reveal where information lands, where trust breaks down, and what makes people more willing to engage.
Contact: hello@madebygoodbit.com
Goodbit · May 5, 2026