The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks

Abstract

Fact-checking has become an important feature of the modern media landscape. However, it is unclear what the most effective format of fact-checks is. Some have argued that simple retractions that repeat a false claim and tag it as false may backfire because they boost the claim's familiarity. More detailed refutations may provide a more promising approach, but may not be feasible under the severe space constraints associated with social-media communication. In two experiments, we tested whether (1) simple 'false-tag' retractions can indeed be ineffective or harmful; and (2) short-format (140-character) refutations are more effective than simple retractions. Regarding (1), simple retractions reduced belief in false claims, and we found no evidence for a familiarity-driven backfire effect. Regarding (2), short-format refutations were found to be more effective than simple retractions after a 1-week delay but not a one-day delay. At both delays, however, they were associated with reduced misinformation-congruent reasoning.

Keywords: fact-checking; false beliefs; familiarity backfire effect; misinformation; online communication; refutations; social media.

Figure 1

Example of an online fact‐check, repeating the false claim and adding a ‘false’ tag. A link at the bottom provides access to additional information. [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 2

Example of true (top) and false (bottom) claim. [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 3

Example of affirmation (top left), plain retraction (bottom left), and refutation (right). [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]

Figure 4

Mean post‐correction/affirmation belief ratings regarding false (left panel) and true claims (right panel) across conditions in Experiment 1. Condition 1: retraction; condition 2: refutation; condition 3: retraction‐only; and condition 4: refutation‐only. Dotted lines indicate mean pre‐correction/affirmation belief ratings from conditions 1 and 2.

Figure 5

Mean post‐correction/affirmation belief ratings regarding false (left panel) and true claims (right panel) across conditions in Experiment 2. Condition 1: retraction; condition 2: refutation; condition 3: retraction‐only; and condition 4: refutation‐only. Dotted lines indicate mean pre‐correction/affirmation belief ratings from conditions 1 and 2.

Figure 6

Mean post‐correction inferential‐reasoning scores regarding false claims across conditions in Experiment 1. Condition 1: retraction; condition 2: refutation; condition 3: retraction‐only; condition 4: refutation‐only; and condition 5: no‐exposure.

Figure 7

Mean post‐correction inferential‐reasoning scores regarding false claims across conditions in Experiment 2. Condition 1: retraction; condition 2: refutation; condition 3: retraction‐only; and condition 4: refutation‐only.