Beyond Belief Correction: Effects of the Truth Sandwich on Perceptions of Fact-checkers and Verification Intentions

Abstract

ABSTRACT As mis- and disinformation may threaten democracy by fueling misperceptions, it is important to assess the effectiveness of journalistic interventions combating false information. This study aims to better understand how fact-checks relate to various outcomes relevant to audiences’ resilience to false information. We randomly exposed 752 Dutch participants to fact-checks of a disputed health-related claim vs. no fact-check. The fact-checks either followed a classic format which repeated the false claim or followed a truth sandwich format wrapping the false claim in accurate information. While the truth sandwich was not effective in correcting false beliefs, it had indirect benefits. First, those who saw a truth sandwich perceived the intentions of fact-checkers more positively thinking that their intention was to inform rather than to manipulate or spread lies. Second, those who saw a truth sandwich showed the least resistance to reading subsequent fact-checks. For journalism practice this implies that different fact-check formats can be strategically employed to achieve desired outcomes. A more classic fact-check format might be preferable if the primary aim is to correct false beliefs, while the truth sandwich may be employed to reach more indirect and long-term aims like rebuilding confidence in fact-checkers or stimulating future verification behaviors.