Editing Fact-checking (section)

==== Correcting misperceptions ====
{{See also|Belief#Belief studies}}
Studies have shown that fact-checking can affect citizens' belief in the accuracy of claims made in political advertisement.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Fridkin|first1=Kim|last2=Kenney|first2=Patrick J.|last3=Wintersieck|first3=Amanda|date=2 January 2015|title=Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire: How Fact-Checking Influences Citizens' Reactions to Negative Advertising|journal=Political Communication|volume=32|issue=1|pages=127–151|doi=10.1080/10584609.2014.914613|s2cid=143495044|issn=1058-4609}}</ref> A 2020 study by [[Paris School of Economics]] and [[Sciences Po]] economists found that falsehoods by [[Marine Le Pen]] during the 2017 French presidential election campaign (i) successfully persuaded voters, (ii) lost their persuasiveness when fact-checked, and (iii) did not reduce voters' political support for Le Pen when her claims were fact-checked.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barrera|first1=Oscar|last2=Guriev|first2=Sergei|last3=Henry|first3=Emeric|last4=Zhuravskaya|first4=Ekaterina|date=2020-02-01|title=Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics|journal=Journal of Public Economics|volume=182|pages=104123|doi=10.1016/j.jpubeco.2019.104123|issn=0047-2727|doi-access=free}}</ref> A 2017 study in the ''Journal of Politics'' found that "individuals consistently update political beliefs in the appropriate direction, even on facts that have clear implications for political party reputations, though they do so cautiously and with some bias... Interestingly, those who identify with one of the political parties are no more biased or cautious than pure independents in their learning, conditional on initial beliefs."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hill|first=Seth J.|s2cid=56004909|date=16 August 2017|title=Learning Together Slowly: Bayesian Learning about Political Facts|journal=The Journal of Politics|pages=1403–1418|doi=10.1086/692739|issn=0022-3816|volume=79|issue=4|url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7zn1f7dn|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

A study by [[Yale University]] cognitive scientists [[Gordon Pennycook]] and [[David G. Rand]] found that [[Facebook]] tags of fake articles "did significantly reduce their perceived accuracy relative to a control without [[tag (metadata)|tags]], but only modestly".<ref name=":3">{{Citation|last1=Pennycook|first1=Gordon|last2=Rand|first2=David G.|date=12 September 2017|title=The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Headlines Increases Perceived Accuracy of Headlines Without Warnings<!-- |journal = Management Science (unpublished?)--> | publisher = Elsevier BV | ssrn=3035384}}</ref> A Dartmouth study led by Brendan Nyhan found that Facebook tags had a greater impact than the Yale study found.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/upshot/why-the-fact-checking-at-facebook-needs-to-be-checked.html|title=Why the Fact-Checking at Facebook Needs to Be Checked|last=Nyhan|first=Brendan|date=23 October 2017|work=The New York Times|access-date=23 October 2017|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171023100904/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/upshot/why-the-fact-checking-at-facebook-needs-to-be-checked.html|archive-date=23 October 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Clayton|first1=Katherine|last2=Blair|first2=Spencer|last3=Busam|first3=Jonathan A.|last4=Forstner|first4=Samuel|last5=Glance|first5=John|last6=Green|first6=Guy|last7=Kawata|first7=Anna|last8=Kovvuri|first8=Akhila|last9=Martin|first9=Jonathan|date=11 February 2019|title=Real Solutions for Fake News? Measuring the Effectiveness of General Warnings and Fact-Check Tags in Reducing Belief in False Stories on Social Media|journal=Political Behavior|volume=42|issue=4|pages=1073–1095|language=en|doi=10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0|s2cid=151227829|issn=1573-6687}}</ref> A "disputed" tag on a false [[headline]] reduced the number of respondents who considered the headline accurate from 29% to 19%, whereas a "rated false" tag pushed the number down to 16%.<ref name=":4" /> A 2019 study found that the "disputed" tag reduced Facebook users' intentions to share a fake news story.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Mena|first=Paul|title=Cleaning Up Social Media: The Effect of Warning Labels on Likelihood of Sharing False News on Facebook|journal=Policy & Internet|language=en|doi=10.1002/poi3.214|issn=1944-2866|year=2019|volume=12|issue=2|pages=165–183|s2cid=201376614}}</ref> The Yale study found evidence of a backfire effect among Trump supporters younger than 26 years whereby the presence of both untagged and tagged fake articles made the untagged fake articles appear more accurate.<ref name=":3" /> In response to research which questioned the effectiveness of the Facebook "disputed" tags, Facebook decided to drop the tags in December 2017 and would instead put articles which fact-checked a fake news story next to the fake news story link whenever it is shared on Facebook.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.axios.com/facebook-drops-fake-news-flags-because-they-had-reverse-effect-2520310212.html|title=Facebook stops putting "Disputed Flags" on fake news because it doesn't work|date=27 December 2017|work=Axios|access-date=28 December 2017|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171228000555/https://www.axios.com/facebook-drops-fake-news-flags-because-they-had-reverse-effect-2520310212.html|archive-date=28 December 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

Based on the findings of a 2017 study in the journal ''Psychological Science,'' the most effective ways to reduce misinformation through corrections is by:<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/business/media/fight-fake-news.html|title=How to Fight 'Fake News' (Warning: It Isn't Easy)|last=Chokshi|first=Niraj|date=18 September 2017|work=The New York Times|access-date=19 September 2017|issn=0362-4331|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170918231919/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/business/media/fight-fake-news.html|archive-date=18 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>
* limiting detailed descriptions of / or arguments in favor of the misinformation; 
* walking through the reasons why a piece of misinformation is false rather than just labelling it false; 
* presenting new and credible information which allows readers to update their knowledge of events and understand why they developed an inaccurate understanding in the first place; 
* using video, as videos appear to be more effective than text at increasing attention and reducing confusion, making videos more effective at correcting misperception than text.

Large studies by Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood found that misinformation propagated by [[Donald Trump]] was more difficult to dispel with the same techniques, and generated the following recommendations:<ref>{{cite book |title=False Alarm: The Truth About Political Mistruths in the Trump Era |doi=10.1017/9781108688338 |isbn=9781108688338 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2019 |author1=Ethan Porter |author2=Thomas J. Wood|s2cid=240628244 }}</ref><ref>[https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-twitters-fact-check-of-trump-might-not-be-enough-to-combat-misinformation/ Fact-Checking Misinformation Can Work. But It Might Not Be Enough.]</ref>
* Highly credible sources are the most effective, especially those which surprisingly report facts against their own perceived bias
* Reframing the issue by adding context can be more effective than simply labeling it as incorrect or unproven.
* Challenging readers' identity or worldview reduces effectiveness.
* Fact-checking immediately is more effective, before false ideas have spread widely.

A 2019 meta-analysis of research into the effects of fact-checking on misinformation found that fact-checking has substantial positive impacts on political beliefs, but that this impact weakened when fact-checkers used "truth scales", refuted only parts of a claim and when they fact-checked campaign-related statements. Individuals' preexisting beliefs, ideology, and knowledge affected to what extent the fact-checking had an impact.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Walter|first1=Nathan|last2=Cohen|first2=Jonathan|last3=Holbert|first3=R. Lance|last4=Morag|first4=Yasmin|date=24 October 2019|title=Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom|journal=Political Communication |volume=37|issue=3|pages=350–375 |doi=10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 |s2cid=210444838|issn=1058-4609}}</ref> A 2019 study in the ''Journal of Experimental Political Science'' found "strong evidence that citizens are willing to accept corrections to fake news, regardless of their ideology and the content of the fake stories."<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Porter|first1=Ethan|last2=Wood|first2=Thomas J.|last3=Kirby|first3=David|date=2018 |title=Sex Trafficking, Russian Infiltration, Birth Certificates, and Pedophilia: A Survey Experiment Correcting Fake News|journal=Journal of Experimental Political Science|language=en|volume=5|issue=2|pages=159–164 |doi=10.1017/XPS.2017.32 |issn=2052-2630|doi-access=free}}</ref>

A 2018 study found that [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] were more likely to correct their false information on [[voter fraud]] if the correction came from [[Breitbart News]] rather than a non-partisan neutral source such as [[PolitiFact]].<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2018|title=They See Dead People (Voting): Correcting Misperceptions about Voter Fraud in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election|journal=Journal of Political Marketing|language=en|volume=18|issue=1–2|pages=31–68|doi=10.1080/15377857.2018.1478656|last1=Holman|first1=Mirya R.|last2=Lay|first2=J. Celeste|s2cid=150282138}}</ref> A 2022 study found that individuals exposed to a fact-check of a false statement by a far-right politician were less likely to share the false statement.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Henry |first1=Emeric |last2=Zhuravskaya |first2=Ekaterina |last3=Guriev |first3=Sergei |date=2022 |title=Checking and Sharing Alt-Facts |url=https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20210037 |journal=American Economic Journal: Economic Policy |language=en |volume=14 |issue=3 |pages=55–86 |doi=10.1257/pol.20210037 |issn=1945-7731}}</ref>

Some studies have found that exposure to fact-checks had durable effects on reducing misperceptions,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Carnahan|first1=Dustin|last2=Bergan|first2=Daniel E.|last3=Lee|first3=Sangwon|date=2020-01-09|title=Do Corrective Effects Last? Results from a Longitudinal Experiment on Beliefs Toward Immigration in the U.S.|journal=Political Behavior|volume=43|issue=3|pages=1227–1246|language=en|doi=10.1007/s11109-020-09591-9|s2cid=214096205|issn=1573-6687}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Porter|first1=Ethan|last2=Wood|first2=Thomas J.|date=2021-09-14|title=The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|language=en|volume=118|issue=37|pages=e2104235118|doi=10.1073/pnas.2104235118|pmid=34507996|pmc=8449384|issn=0027-8424|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021PNAS..11804235P }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Velez |first1=Yamil R. |last2=Porter |first2=Ethan |last3=Wood |first3=Thomas J. |date=2023-02-14 |title=Latino-Targeted Misinformation and the Power of Factual Corrections |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/722345 |journal=The Journal of Politics |volume=85 |issue=2 |language=en |pages=789–794 |doi=10.1086/722345 |s2cid=252254129 |issn=0022-3816|url-access=subscription }}</ref> whereas other studies have found no effects.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Carey|first1=John M.|last2=Guess|first2=Andrew M.|last3=Loewen|first3=Peter J.|last4=Merkley|first4=Eric|last5=Nyhan|first5=Brendan|last6=Phillips|first6=Joseph B.|last7=Reifler|first7=Jason|date=2022-02-03|title=The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada|journal=Nature Human Behaviour|volume=6|issue=2|language=en|pages=236–243|doi=10.1038/s41562-021-01278-3|pmid=35115678|s2cid=246529090|issn=2397-3374|doi-access=free|hdl=10871/128705|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Batista Pereira |first1=Frederico |last2=Bueno |first2=Natália S. |last3=Nunes |first3=Felipe |last4=Pavão |first4=Nara |date=2022 |title=Fake News, Fact Checking, and Partisanship: The Resilience of Rumors in the 2018 Brazilian Elections |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/719419 |journal=The Journal of Politics |volume=84 |issue=4 |page=000 |doi=10.1086/719419 |issn=0022-3816 |s2cid=252818440|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Scholars have debated whether fact-checking could lead to a "[[Belief perseverance|backfire effect]]" whereby correcting false information may make partisan individuals cling more strongly to their views. One study found evidence of such a "[[Belief perseverance|backfire effect]]",<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nyhan |first1=Brendan |last2=Reifler |first2=Jason |date=9 January 2015 |title=Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information |url=https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/10871/21566/1/Nyhan%20Reifler%20vaccine.pdf |journal=Vaccine |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=459–464 |doi=10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017 |issn=1873-2518 |pmid=25499651 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10871/21566 |s2cid=291822}}</ref> but several other studies did not.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Haglin |first=Kathryn |date=1 July 2017 |title=The limitations of the backfire effect |journal=Research & Politics |volume=4 |issue=3 |page=2053168017716547 |doi=10.1177/2053168017716547 |issn=2053-1680 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wood |first1=Thomas |last2=Porter |first2=Ethan |date=2019 |title=The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes' Steadfast Factual Adherence |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y |journal=Political Behavior |language=en |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=135–163 |doi=10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y |s2cid=151582406 |issn=1573-6687|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nyhan |first1=Brendan |last2=Porter |first2=Ethan |last3=Reifler |first3=Jason |last4=Wood |first4=Thomas J. |date=21 January 2019 |title=Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability |journal=Political Behavior |language=en |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=939–960 |doi=10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x |issn=1573-6687 |hdl-access=free |hdl=10871/38020 |s2cid=189913123}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Guess |first1=Andrew |last2=Coppock |first2=Alexander |date=2018 |title=Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/does-counterattitudinal-information-cause-backlash-results-from-three-large-survey-experiments/526B71F3BB76A39C1101384D576208D4 |url-status=live |journal=British Journal of Political Science |language=en |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=1497–1515 |doi=10.1017/S0007123418000327 |issn=0007-1234 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181106005059/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/does-counterattitudinal-information-cause-backlash-results-from-three-large-survey-experiments/526B71F3BB76A39C1101384D576208D4 |archive-date=6 November 2018 |access-date=5 November 2018 |s2cid=158335101|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Nyhan |first=Brendan |date=5 November 2016 |title=Fact-Checking Can Change Views? We Rate That as Mostly True |newspaper=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/upshot/fact-checking-can-change-views-we-rate-that-as-mostly-true.html |url-status=live |access-date=5 November 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161106055911/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/upshot/fact-checking-can-change-views-we-rate-that-as-mostly-true.html |archive-date=6 November 2016 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref>