Fact-Checking Effectiveness as a Function of Format and Tone: Evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org

Abstract

This experiment explores the role of information format (print vs. video) and tone (humorous–nonhumorous) in shaping message interest and belief correction in the context of political fact-checking ( N = 525). To understand the mechanisms by which audience misperceptions may be reduced, this experiment tests the belief-correcting effectiveness of a humorous fact-checking video produced by Flackcheck.org , a long-form FactCheck.org print article on the same topic, a nonhumorous video debunking the same set of claims, an unrelated humorous video, and a non-stimulus control group. Mediating psychological mechanisms (message interest, counterargumentation, message discounting) and message perceptions (message confusion) are explored. Results suggest video (humorous or nonhumorous) is an effective way to reduce audience misperceptions by increasing message attention and reducing confusion.

Cleaning Up Social Media: The Effect of Warning Labels on Likelihood of Sharing False News on Facebook

“…In this way, research has shown that the effects of misinformation may continue to influence attitudes even after false claims have been discredited (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Swire, & Chang, ; Thorson, ). Nevertheless, more recent research has found that certain formats and mechanisms of correction of misinformation—such as fact‐checking and “related stories” functionality in social media—may be effective without stimulating a backfire effect (Bode & Vraga, ; Swire, Berinsky, Lewandowsky, & Ecker, ; Wood & Porter, ; Young, Jamieson, Poulsen, & Goldring, ). Indeed, almost no indication of a backfire effect was found in a study that tested 36 topics of potential backfire, finding that when presented with facts, people “do not go to the effort of compounding inaccurate beliefs, as the backfire hypothesis would predict” (Wood & Porter, , p. 36).…”

Reinforcing attitudes in a gatewatching news era: Individual-level antecedents to sharing fact-checks on social media

“…In addition to the individual characteristics that may condition the likelihood of sharing a fact-check, specific message factors may motivate sharing, as well. For instance, fact-checks in video formatsuch as from FlackCheck.orgare more effective than those in textual format (Young, Jamieson, Poulsen, & Goldring, 2018). In the U.S., however, the majority of fact-checks are text driven (Amazeen, 2013).…”

The effectiveness of short‐format refutational fact‐checks

“…This is corroborated by experimental psychological work that has consistently shown that corrected misinformation continues to influence people's memory and reasoning even if the correction is understood and remembered – a phenomenon termed the continued influence effect of misinformation (Johnson & Seifert, ; Lewandowsky, Ecker, Seifert, Schwarz, & Cook, ; Seifert, ). Moreover, it is unclear what fact‐checking format is most effective (Amazeen, Thorson, Muddiman, & Graves, ; Young, Jamieson, Poulsen, & Goldring, ). The most common format used by fact‐checking websites or social‐media accounts devoted to fact‐checking restates the misinformation while adding some variant of a ‘false’ tag (see Figure ).…”