Does Fact-Checking Actually Change Minds? • Why Are We Like This?

The big picture

Anyone who follows political news has likely encountered a specific type of despair: the feeling that no matter how many times a false claim is debunked, it refuses to die. This frustration has given rise to a popular belief that fact-checking is futile, or worse, that it triggers a “backfire effect” where correcting someone only makes them dig their heels in deeper. The intuition is that human psychology is so riddled with motivated reasoning that facts simply bounce off partisan shields.

The research tells a different, slightly more optimistic story. Comprehensive meta-analyses—studies that crunch the data from dozens of other studies—have found that fact-checking actually works quite well at its primary job. When people are shown a correction, they generally update their factual beliefs to be more accurate ^{1, 2}. This holds true across various topics and demographics. The infamous “backfire effect,” while real in specific outlier cases, is largely a myth in terms of general application. It is the exception, not the rule ³.

However, there is a catch. While fact-checking fixes facts, it often fails to fix feelings. A voter might be successfully convinced that a specific scandal didn’t happen, but that correction often fails to change their negative attitude toward the politician involved—a phenomenon researchers call “belief echoes” ⁴. The brain accepts the correction, but the emotional stain remains.

In short, fact-checking works, but it is a specific tool with a narrow range of motion. It is effective at correcting the record, but rarely enough to overturn the worldview that made the lie attractive in the first place.

Get all the details

The Death of the Backfire Effect#

For years, the “backfire effect” was the dominant narrative in public discussions about misinformation. The idea, popularized by early research, was that confronting a partisan with corrective information would threaten their identity, causing them to counter-argue so vigorously that they ended up believing the falsehood even more strongly ⁵. It was a compelling story because it explained the seeming futility of political argument.

But as researchers expanded their scope, the backfire effect turned out to be elusive. When scientists tried to replicate these findings across larger groups and different topics, the effect mostly disappeared. A massive meta-analysis of over 60 studies found that while people do engage in motivated reasoning—scrutinizing opposing facts more harshly—they still ultimately adjust their beliefs in the direction of the truth ¹.

It is important to be precise about what this means. It does not mean everyone admits they were wrong immediately. It means that, on average, exposure to a fact-check reduces belief in misinformation. Even among groups assumed to be unmovable, such as strong partisans receiving counter-attitudinal corrections, the data shows they generally become more accurate, not less ³.

The debate: Why did we think it backfired?

The original “backfire” finding came from a study regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, where corrections seemingly made some conservatives believe in WMDs more strongly ⁵. This study was rigorous, but it captured a specific moment on a highly salient, identity-defining issue.

Later work suggests that what looked like “backfire” might have been a measurement issue or a statistical anomaly. When researchers test hundreds of false claims, the “backfire” result appears so rarely that it is statistically negligible. As Nyhan himself later noted, “The backfire effect is not a robust empirical phenomenon” ³. We tend to remember the dramatic instances where corrections are rejected rather than the quiet instances where someone reads a correction and updates their beliefs.

The “Belief Echo” Problem#

If fact-checks work, why does it feel like they don’t? The answer lies in the distinction between factual belief and political attitude.

Researchers differentiate between believing a claim (e.g., “Did Candidate X take a bribe?”) and supporting a candidate (e.g., “Do I like Candidate X?”). Fact-checks are very good at moving the first needle, but terrible at moving the second. This is the phenomenon of “belief echoes” ⁴. Even when a misinformation correction is successful—meaning the person admits the information was false—the negative imagery associated with the misinformation continues to color their evaluation of the target.

For example, consider a false rumor that a politician embezzled money. When someone learns definitively that the embezzlement didn’t happen, their brain updates the fact to “false.” However, the negative emotional affect linked to that politician persists. The thought becomes, “Well, he didn’t steal this money, but he’s the kind of person who would.” The accusation itself creates a lingering shadow that the correction cannot scrub away ^{6, 4}.

This helps explain why debunking campaign misinformation rarely changes vote choice ⁷. The specific fact is often just a rationalization for a deeper preference. When one support pillar is knocked out (the false fact), the building (the political preference) stands firm on other pillars.

How the Brain Processes Corrections#

Correcting a false belief is not as simple as deleting a file on a hard drive. It is more like trying to overwrite a stained piece of paper. The false information leaves a memory trace that can influence reasoning later. This is known as the “continued influence effect” ^{8, 9}.

For a correction to stick, it needs to do more than just negate the lie. A bare denial (“X is not true”) leaves a gap in the person’s mental model. If a warehouse fire wasn’t caused by arson (as the rumor claimed), then what did cause it? Without a replacement explanation, people often default back to the misinformation because it offers a coherent story. Corrections are significantly more effective when they provide an alternative causal explanation to replace the false one ^{9, 10}.

The format of the correction matters, too. While much of the early research focused on text, newer studies suggest that video fact-checks can be more effective than text-based ones, particularly for people who already hold the false belief or are uncertain ¹¹. Visual media may demand less cognitive load to process, or it may simply be more engaging, preventing the user from scrolling past the correction.

Methods: How do we know this?

Most of this research relies on controlled experiments. In a typical setup, participants are shown a simulated news feed or social media post containing misinformation. One group sees a correction (the treatment), and another sees an unrelated article (the control). Researchers then measure their beliefs immediately after.

This approach has limitations. Real-world misinformation is repeated, social, and voluntary. In a lab, participants have to read the correction. In the real world, people can block the fact-checker. Consequently, these studies likely represent the best-case scenario for how well a correction can work when someone actually pays attention to it ^{10, 12}.

The Trust Paradox#

There is a growing concern that the act of fact-checking itself might have unintended collateral damage. While corrections improve factual accuracy, they can also increase hostility toward the media or the fact-checker, particularly when the correction targets a political ally ¹³.

This creates a dilemma. A fact-checker might successfully debunk a viral lie, but in doing so, they may be perceived as biased by the group being corrected. Over time, this can erode the institutional trust required for fact-checks to work at all. Some research indicates that aggressive fact-checking coverage can lead to lower trust in media outlets generally, as audiences become exhausted by the constant adjudication of truth ¹⁴.

Furthermore, the sheer volume of fact-checking can lead to a “tainted truth” effect. People become so skeptical of fake news that they begin to doubt true news stories as well ^{15, 16}. When the media environment is framed as a minefield of lies, citizens may adopt a defensive crouch, trusting nothing. This state is arguably just as dangerous as believing everything.

Prebunking as Prevention#

Given the difficulty of scrubbing misinformation from memory once it has taken root, researchers have pivoted toward “prebunking” or inoculation. The theory is based on a medical metaphor: by exposing people to a weakened dose of the misinformation (and explaining the manipulative technique used) before they encounter the real thing, they develop resistance ¹⁷.

This approach shifts the focus from correcting specific facts to improving information literacy. It appears promising because it bypasses the motivated reasoning that kicks in once a person has already committed to a false belief. It is easier to warn someone that “bad actors will try to use emotional language to manipulate you” than it is to convince them that their favorite pundit lied to them yesterday.

The benefit of prebunking is that it equips people with cognitive tools rather than asking them to reject specific beliefs. Early evidence suggests this may be a more sustainable approach to the misinformation problem, though it requires investment before the damage is done.

References#

References (17 cited sources)

1. Walter, N., Cohen, J., Holbert, R. L., & Morag, Y. (2020). Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350-375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894 ↗

2. Chan, M. S., Jones, C. R., Hall Jamieson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2017). Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531-1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579 ↗

3. Nyhan, B. (2021). Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912440117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912440117 ↗

4. Thorson, E. (2016). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33, 460-480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187 ↗

5. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2 ↗

6. Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2013). Beliefs don’t always persevere: How political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychology, 34(3), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00935.x ↗

7. Weeks, B. E., & Garrett, R. K. (2014). Electoral consequences of political rumors: Motivated reasoning, candidate rumors, and vote choice during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 26(4), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edu005 ↗

8. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420-1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420 ↗

9. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018 ↗

10. Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Political misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 ↗

11. Dan, V., & Coleman, R. (2024). “I’ll Change My Beliefs When I See It”: Video Fact Checks Outperform Text Fact Checks in Correcting Misperceptions Among Those Holding False or Uncertain Pre-Existing Beliefs. Communication Research, 00936502241287870. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241287870 ↗

12. Gross, K., Porter, E., & Wood, T. J. (2019). Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication, 36(2), 272-287. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1514447 ↗

13. Aruguete, N., Calvo, E., & Ventura, T. (2025). The fact-checking dilemma: Fact-checking increases the reputation of the fact-checker but creates perceptions of ideological bias. Research & Politics, 12(1), 20531680251323120. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251323120 ↗

14. Thorson, E. (2024). How News Coverage of Misinformation Shapes Perceptions and Trust.

15. Pfänder, J., & Altay, S. (2025). Spotting false news and doubting true news: a systematic review and meta-analysis of news judgements. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(4), 688-699. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02086-1 ↗

16. Pingree, R. J. (2011). Effects of unresolved factual disputes in the news on epistemic political efficacy. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 22-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01525.x ↗

17. Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983 ↗

Additional Sources Consulted (91)

Anspach, N. M., & Carlson, T. N. (2024). Not who you think? Exposure and vulnerability to misinformation. New Media & Society, 26(8), 4847-4866. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221130422 ↗
Appel, M., & Prietzel, F. (2022). The detection of political deepfakes. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4), zmac008. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac008 ↗
Bachmann, I., & Valenzuela, S. (2023). Studying the downstream effects of fact-checking on social media: experiments on correction formats, belief accuracy, and media trust. Social Media + Society, 9(2), 20563051231179694. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231179694 ↗
Benedictis-Kessner, J. D., Baum, M. A., Berinsky, A. J., & Yamamoto, T. (2019). Persuading the enemy: estimating the persuasive effects of partisan media with the preference-incorporating choice and assignment design. American Political Science Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000418 ↗
Brenes Peralta, C. M., Sánchez, R. P., & González, I. S. (2022). Individual Evaluation vs Fact-checking in the Recognition and Willingness to Share Fake News About Covid-19 via Whatsapp. Journalism Studies, 23(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2021.1994446 ↗
Broockman, D. E., & Kalla, J. L. (2025). Consuming Cross-Cutting Media Causes Learning and Moderates Attitudes: A Field Experiment with Fox News Viewers. The Journal of Politics, 87(1), 246-261. https://doi.org/10.1086/730725 ↗
Campante, F. R., Durante, R., Hagemeister, F., & Sen, A. (2025). GenAI misinformation, trust, and news consumption: Evidence from a field experiment. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.3386/w34100 ↗
Carey, J. M., Chun, E., Cook, A., Fogarty, B. J., Jacoby, L., Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Sweeney, L. (2025). The narrow reach of targeted corrections: No impact on broader beliefs about election integrity. Political Behavior, 47(2), 737-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09968-0 ↗
Carlson, T. N. (2019). Through the grapevine: informational consequences of interpersonal political communication. American Political Science Review, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541900008X ↗
Carnahan, D., & Bergan, D. E. (2022). Correcting the Misinformed: The Effectiveness of Fact-checking Messages in Changing False Beliefs. Political Communication, 39(2), 166-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1963358 ↗
Carnahan, D., Hao, Q., Jiang, X., & Lee, H. (2018). Feeling fine about being wrong: the influence of self-affirmation on the effectiveness of corrective information. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 274-298. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy001 ↗
Chae, J. H., & Tewksbury, D. (2024). Perceiving AI intervention does not compromise the persuasive effect of fact-checking. New Media & Society, 14614448241286881. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241286881 ↗
Chockalingam, V., Wu, V., Berlinski, N., Chandra, Z., Hu, A., Jones, E., Kramer, J., Li, X. S., Monfre, T., Ng, Y. S., Sach, M., Smith-Lopez, M., Solomon, S., Sosanya, A., & Nyhan, B. (2021). The limited effects of partisan and consensus messaging in correcting science misperceptions. Research & Politics, 8(2), 20531680211014980. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680211014980 ↗
Chung, M., & Kim, N. (2021). When I learn the news is false: how fact-checking information stems the spread of fake news via third-person perception. Human Communication Research, 47(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqaa010 ↗
Chung, M., Moon, W., & Jones-Jang, S. M. (2023). AI as an apolitical referee: using alternative sources to decrease partisan biases in the processing of fact-checking messages. Digital Journalism. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2254820 ↗
Coppock, A. (2018). Generalizing from survey experiments conducted on Mechanical Turk: a replication approach. Political Science Research and Methods, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.10 ↗
DeVerna, M. R., Yan, H. Y., Yang, K., & Menczer, F. (2024). Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2322823121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322823121 ↗
Droog, E., Vermeulen, I., van Huijstee, D., Harutyunyan, D., Tejedor, S., & Pulido, C. (2025). Combatting the misinformation crisis: a systematic review of the literature on characteristics and effectiveness of media literacy interventions. Communication Research, 936502251363705. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251363705 ↗
Druckman, J. N., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430-454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000123 ↗
Ecker, U. K. H., & Ang, L. C. (2019). Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychology, 40(2), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12494 ↗
Edgerly, S., Mourão, R. R., Thorson, E., & Tham, S. M. (2020). When do audiences verify? How perceptions about message and source influence audience verification of news headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97(1), 52-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699019864680 ↗
Eveland, W. P., & Garrett, R. K. (2014). Communication modalities and political knowledge.
Eveland, W. P., & Schmitt, J. B. (2015). Communication content and knowledge content matters: Integrating manipulation and observation in studying news and discussion learning effects. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 170-191. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12138 ↗
Feldman, L., Stroud, N. J., Bimber, B., & Wojcieszak, M. (2013). Assessing selective exposure in experiments: The implications of different methodological choices. Communication Methods and Measures, 7(3), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2013.813923 ↗
Ferrucci, P., & Hopp, T. (2023). Let’s intervene: how platforms can combine media literacy and self-efficacy to fight fake news. Communication and the Public, 8(4), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473231203081 ↗
Flynn, D., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12394 ↗
Fridkin, K., Kenney, P. J., & Wintersieck, A. (2015). Liar, liar, pants on fire: How fact-checking influences citizens’ reactions to negative advertising. Political Communication, 32(1), 127-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2014.914613 ↗
Gambin, A., & Munzel, A. (2025). Guarding against deception through news literacy interventions: Impact of issue involvement and participation on young French adults’ fake news vulnerability. New Media & Society, 14614448251342796. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251342796 ↗
Garrett, R. K., Nisbet, E. C., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12038 ↗
Garrett, R. K., Sude, D., & Riva, P. (2020). Toeing the Party Lie: Ostracism Promotes Endorsement of Partisan Election Falsehoods. Political Communication, 37(2), 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1666943 ↗
Gerber, A. S., Gimpel, J. G., Green, D. P., & Shaw, D. R. (2011). How large and long-lasting are the persuasive effects of televised campaign ads? Results from a randomized field experiment. American Political Science Review, 105(01), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305541000047X ↗
Graham, M. H., & Yair, O. (2025). Less partisan but no more competent: expressive responding and fact-opinion discernment. Public Opinion Quarterly, nfaf008. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaf008 ↗
Graves, L., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2016). Understanding innovations in journalistic practice: a field experiment examining motivations for fact-checking. Journal of Communication, 66(1), 102-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12198 ↗
Green, D. P., Calfano, B. R., & Aronow, P. M. (2014). Field experimental designs for the study of media effects. Political Communication, 31(1), 168-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828142 ↗
Guess, A. M., Barberá, P., Munzert, S., & Yang, J. (2021). The consequences of online partisan media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14), e2013464118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013464118 ↗
Hameleers, M., Powell, T. E., Van Der Meer, T. G., & Bos, L. (2020). A Picture Paints a Thousand Lies? The Effects and Mechanisms of Multimodal Disinformation and Rebuttals Disseminated via Social Media. Political Communication, 37(2), 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1674979 ↗
Hoes, E., Clemm, B., Gessler, T., Qian, S., & Wojcieszak, M. (2025). (media attention to) misinformation can undermine trust in scientists. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10090-y ↗
Holman, M. R., & Lay, J. C. (2019). They see dead people (voting): correcting misperceptions about voter fraud in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing, 18(1), 31-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2018.1478656 ↗
Iyengar, S. (2011). Experimental designs for political communication research.
Jang, J., Lee, E., & Shin, S. Y. (2019). What debunking of misinformation does and doesn’t. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(6), 423-427. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0608 ↗
Jerit, J., Barabas, J., Pollock, W., Banducci, S., Stevens, D., & Schoonvelde, M. (2016). Manipulated vs. Measured: using an experimental benchmark to investigate the performance of self-reported media exposure. Communication Methods and Measures, 10(2), 99-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150444 ↗
Ji, J., Qin, X., & Calabrese, C. (2025). Fact-checking misinformation on Chinese Social Media: Impact of corrections, awareness prompts, and legal warnings on endorsement. New Media & Society, 14614448251334764. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251334764 ↗
Kane, J. V., & Barabas, J. (2019). No Harm in Checking: Using Factual Manipulation Checks to Assess Attentiveness in Experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12396 ↗
Kim, Y., & Lee, J. (2025). Balancing artificial intelligence and human expertise: Ideal Fact-Checking strategies for hard and soft news. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 10776990251325875. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251325875 ↗
Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., Ditonto, T. M., Kleinberg, M. S., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2017). Effect of media environment diversity and advertising tone on information search, selective exposure, and affective polarization. Political Behavior, 39(1), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9354-8 ↗
Lau, R. R., Rogers, K., & Love, J. (2021). Media Effects in the Viewer’s Choice Era: Testing Revised Agenda-Setting and Priming Hypotheses. Political Communication, 38(3), 199-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1763526 ↗
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Getting real: the duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959-983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x ↗
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2017). News media, knowledge, and political interest: evidence of a dual role from a field experiment. Journal of Communication, 67(4), 545-564. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12314 ↗
Lee, E., & Chung, M. (2025). Thinking hard, thinking smart: How news users’ cognitive traits guide their responses to Fact-Checks. Digital Journalism, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2492209 ↗
Leeper, T. J. (2020). Raising the Floor or Closing the Gap? How Media Choice and Media Content Impact Political Knowledge. Political Communication, 37(5), 719-740. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1753866 ↗
Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers?. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 611–623.
Li, J. (2020). Toward a Research Agenda on Political Misinformation and Corrective Information. Political Communication, 37(1), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716499 ↗
Lin, H., Lee, J., Wang, Y., & Kim, Y. (2025). The Corrective Effect of Fact-Checking and Hostile Media Perceptions: A Three-Way Interaction Model between Social Media News Usage and Political Misperceptions. Digital Journalism, 13(8), 1461-1481. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2024.2383889 ↗
Liu, X., Qi, L., Wang, L., & Metzger, M. J. (2023). Checking the fact-checkers: the role of source type, perceived credibility, and individual differences in fact-checking effectiveness. Communication Research, 00936502231206419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231206419 ↗
Margolin, D. B., Hannak, A., & Weber, I. (2018). Political Fact-Checking on Twitter: When Do Corrections Have an Effect?. Political Communication, 35(2), 196-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2017.1334018 ↗
Martel, C., Rathje, S., Clark, C. J., Pennycook, G., Van Bavel, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Linden, S. V. D. (2023). On the efficacy of accuracy prompts across partisan lines: an adversarial collaboration. Preprint. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p2zy5 ↗
Martel, C., Rathje, S., Clark, C. J., Pennycook, G., Van Bavel, J. J., Rand, D. G., & van der Linden, S. (2024). On the efficacy of accuracy prompts across partisan lines: an adversarial collaboration. Psychological Science, 35(4), 435-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976241232905 ↗
Messing, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2014). Selective exposure in the age of social media: Endorsements trump partisan source affiliation when selecting news online. Communication Research, 41(8), 1042-1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212466406 ↗
Moon, W., Chung, M., & Jones-Jang, S. M. (2023). How can we fight partisan biases in the COVID-19 pandemic? AI source labels on fact-checking messages reduce motivated reasoning. Mass Communication and Society, 26(4), 646-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2097926 ↗
Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109–138.
Nekmat, E. (2020). Nudge effect of fact-check alerts: source influence and media skepticism on sharing of news misinformation in social media. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 2056305119897322. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119897322 ↗
Neuman, W. R. (2018). The paradox of the paradigm: an important gap in media effects research. Journal of Communication, 68(2), 369-379. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx022 ↗
Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. J. (2020). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior, 42(3), 939-960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09528-x ↗
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of Fact-Checking on elites: A field experiment on U.S. State legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628-640. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12162 ↗
Oeldorf-Hirsch, A., Schmierbach, M., Appelman, A., & Boyle, M. P. (2024). The influence of fact-checking is disputed! The role of party identification in processing and sharing fact-checked social media posts. American Behavioral Scientist, 68(10), 1345-1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642231174335 ↗
Ozer, A. L., & Wright, J. M. (2022). Partisan news versus party cues: the effect of cross-cutting party and partisan network cues on polarization and persuasion. Research & Politics, 9(1), 20531680221075455. https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680221075455 ↗
Pantazi, M., Hale, S., & Klein, O. (2021). Social and cognitive aspects of the vulnerability to political misinformation. Political Psychology, 42, 267-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12797 ↗
Pennycook, G., Binnendyk, J., Newton, C., & Rand, D. G. (2021). A Practical Guide to Doing Behavioral Research on Fake News and Misinformation. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 25293. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.25293 ↗
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Accuracy prompts are a replicable and generalizable approach for reducing the spread of misinformation. Nature Communications, 13(1), 2333. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30073-5 ↗
Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2022). Nudging social media toward accuracy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221092342 ↗
Prike, T., Baker, J., & Ecker, U. K. H. (n.d.). Fact-checking election-campaign misinformation: Impacts on noncommitted voters’ feelings and behavior. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13059 ↗
Prior, M. (2013). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242 ↗
Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). The fake news game: actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491 ↗
Shin, J., & Thorson, K. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: the biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12284 ↗
Stein, R., & Meyersohn, C. E. (2024). Whose Pants Are on Fire? Journalists Correcting False Claims are Distrusted More Than Journalists Confirming Claims. Communication Research, 00936502241262377. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241262377 ↗
Stroud, N. J., & Haenschen, K. (2018). Experiments.
Tu, F. (2024). Empowering social media users: nudge toward self-engaged verification for improved truth and sharing discernment. Journal of Communication, 74(3), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae007 ↗
Tu, F., Pan, Z., & Jia, X. (2023). Facts are hard to come by: discerning and sharing factual information on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 28(4), zmad021. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad021 ↗
van Huijstee, D., Vermeulen, I., Kerkhof, P., & Droog, E. (2025). Combatting the persuasive effects of misinformation: Forewarning versus debunking revisited. New Media & Society, 14614448251359988. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251359988 ↗
Vargo, C. J., Guo, L., & Amazeen, M. A. (2018). The agenda-setting power of fake news: A big data analysis of the online media landscape from 2014 to 2016. New Media & Society, 20(5), 2028-2049. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817712086 ↗
Vegetti, F., & Mancosu, M. (2020). The Impact of Political Sophistication and Motivated Reasoning on Misinformation. Political Communication, 37(5), 678-695. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1744778 ↗
Wang, A. H. (2022). PM Me the Truth? The Conditional Effectiveness of Fact-Checks Across Social Media Sites. Social Media + Society, 8(2), 20563051221098347. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221098347 ↗
Wang, L., & Feldman, L. (2025). Source Matters? Exploring the Effects of Source Congeniality on Corrections of False Information on Twitter. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 30(1), 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612241233543 ↗
Wang, R., & Ophir, Y. (2026). Can professional or AI fact-checking protect trust in journalism from political attacks? The complex roles of source, transparency, ideology, and the machine heuristic. Computers in Human Behavior, 176, 108872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108872 ↗
Wang, Y., lin, H., Kim, B., & Kim, Y. (2025). Fact-Checking News Use and Political Misperception: Testing the Cognitive Process of Elaboration on Political Knowledge. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19401612251351149. https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612251351149 ↗
Weeks, B. E. (2015). Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 699-719. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12164 ↗
Wittenberg, C., Baum, M. A., Berinsky, A. J., de Benedictis-Kessner, J., & Yamamoto, T. (2023). Media Measurement Matters: Estimating the Persuasive Effects of Partisan Media with Survey and Behavioral Data. The Journal of Politics, 85(4), 1275-1290. https://doi.org/10.1086/724960 ↗
Wittenberg, C., Tappin, B. M., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. (2021). The (minimal) persuasive advantage of political video over text. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(47), e2114388118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2114388118 ↗
Wojcieszak, M., von Hohenberg, B. C., Casas, A., Menchen-Trevino, E., de Leeuw, S., Gonçalves, A., & Boon, M. (2022). Null effects of news exposure: a test of the (un)desirable effects of a ‘news vacation’ and ‘news binging’. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01423-x ↗
Xue, H., Zhang, J., Shen, C., & Wojcieszak, M. (2024). The majority of fact-checking labels in the United States are intense and this decreases engagement intention. Human Communication Research, 50(4), 530-544. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae007 ↗
Yu, W., & Shen, F. (2024). Mapping verification behaviors in the post-truth era: a systematic review. New Media & Society, 26(3), 1703-1727. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231191138 ↗