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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 19 |
| Journal | British Journal of Psychology |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 2 Mar 2019 |
Fingerprint
Cite this
}
The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks. / Ecker, Ullrich K.H.; O'Reilly, Ziggy; Reid, Jesse S.; Chang, Ee Pin.
In: British Journal of Psychology, 02.03.2019.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - The effectiveness of short-format refutational fact-checks
AU - Ecker, Ullrich K.H.
AU - O'Reilly, Ziggy
AU - Reid, Jesse S.
AU - Chang, Ee Pin
PY - 2019/3/2
Y1 - 2019/3/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - fact-checking
KW - false beliefs
KW - familiarity backfire effect
KW - misinformation
KW - online communication
KW - refutations
KW - social media
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062327157&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/bjop.12383
DO - 10.1111/bjop.12383
M3 - Article
JO - British Journal of Psychology
JF - British Journal of Psychology
SN - 0007-1269
ER -