Does Fact Checking Work What The Science Says Nature

Bonisiwe Shabane

-Dec 5, 2025, 5:14 PM

does fact checking work what the science says nature

It is said that a lie can fly halfway around the world while the truth is getting its boots on. That trek to challenge online falsehoods and misinformation got a little harder this week, when Facebook’s parent company Meta announced plans to scrap the platform’s fact-checking programme, which was set up in 2016 and... Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription Receive 51 print issues and online access Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 1957–1967 (2024)Cite this article Warning labels from professional fact-checkers are one of the most widely used interventions against online misinformation. But are fact-checker warning labels effective for those who distrust fact-checkers? Here, in a first correlational study (N = 1,000), we validate a measure of trust in fact-checkers. Next, we conduct meta-analyses across 21 experiments (total N = 14,133) in which participants evaluated true and false news posts and were randomized to either see no warning labels or to see warning labels... Warning labels were on average effective at reducing belief in (27.6% reduction), and sharing of (24.7% reduction), false headlines.

While warning effects were smaller for participants with less trust in fact-checkers, warning labels nonetheless significantly reduced belief in (12.9% reduction), and sharing of (16.7% reduction), false news even for those most distrusting of... These results suggest that fact-checker warning labels are a broadly effective tool for combatting misinformation. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription Scientific testing is the foundation of our understanding of the natural world.

It is an investigative process that relies on experiments, observations, and falsifiability—a concept introduced by philosopher Karl Popper. This means that for a claim to be scientific, it must be testable and capable of being proven wrong. Scientific testing appears in various forms, each contributing to knowledge and progress: Clinical Trials ensure that medical treatments are both safe and effective before reaching the public. Physics Experiments reveal fundamental truths about the universe, such as the discovery of the Higgs boson. Astronomy Observations confirm theoretical predictions, like Einstein’s general relativity being proven during a solar eclipse.

In terms of helping to convince people that information is true and trustworthy, “fact-checking does work”, says Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist at the University of Cambridge, UK, who acted as an... “Studies provide very consistent evidence that fact-checking does at least partially reduce misperceptions about false claims.” Fact-checking is less effective when an issue is polarized, says Jay Van Bavel, a psychologist at New York University in New York City. “If you’re fact-checking something around Brexit in the UK or the election in United States, that’s where fact-checks don’t work very well,” he says. “In part that’s because people who are partisans don’t want to believe things that make their party look bad.” “If you wanted to know whether a person is exposed to misinformation online, knowing if they’re politically conservative is your best predictor of that,” says Gordon Pennycook, a psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca,...

Read the whole story (subscription may be required): Scientific American Cognitive scientists are helping artificial intelligence think more like us. These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through the use of credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles.

See all Pro-Science sources. Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE (-1.0) Factual Reporting: VERY HIGH (0.0) Country: United Kingdom MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE Media Type: Journal Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY Nature is a British interdisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. It was ranked the world’s most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, and it is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 38.1. It is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publish original research across various scientific fields. Read our profile on UK Media and Government.

Nature is owned and published by Nature Research, a division of the international scientific publishing company Springer Nature that publishes academic journals, magazines, online databases, and services in science and medicine. Revenue is derived from subscription and newsstand sales as well as advertising. To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: evporter@gwu.edu. Edited by Gordon Pennycook, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada, and accepted by Editorial Board Member Margaret Levi July 23, 2021 (received for review March 4, 2021) Author contributions: E.P.

and T.J.W. designed research, performed research, analyzed data, and wrote the paper. 1E.P. and T.J.W. contributed equally to this work. Accepted 2021 Jul 23; Issue date 2021 Sep 14.

What Are AI Chatbot Companions Doing to Our Mental Health? AI chatbot companions may not be real, but the feelings users form for them are. Some scientists worry about long-term dependency Does Fact-Checking Work? Here’s What the Science Says Communication and misinformation researchers reveal the value of fact-checking, where perceived biases come from and what Meta’s decision could mean

Lethal AI Weapons Are on the Rise. What’s Next? Scientific Reports volume 14, Article number: 3201 (2024) Cite this article Previous research has extensively investigated why users spread misinformation online, while less attention has been given to the motivations behind sharing fact-checks. This article reports a four-country survey experiment assessing the influence of confirmation and refutation frames on engagement with online fact-checks. Respondents randomly received semantically identical content, either affirming accurate information (“It is TRUE that p”) or refuting misinformation (“It is FALSE that not p”).

Despite semantic equivalence, confirmation frames elicit higher engagement rates than refutation frames. Additionally, confirmation frames reduce self-reported negative emotions related to polarization. These findings are crucial for designing policy interventions aiming to amplify fact-check exposure and reduce affective polarization, particularly in critical areas such as health-related misinformation and harmful speech. Fact-checking is today the first line of defense against misinformation1,2,3,4. It is frequently defined as “the practice of systematically publishing assessments of the validity of claims made by public officials and institutions with an explicit attempt to identify whether a claim is factual”5, p. 350.

Research shows that fact checks successfully influence people’s discernment of misinformation and nudge users to update their beliefs after correction, whether in survey experiments or field experiments, and across different cultural contexts1,6,7,8. The effect of fact-checking interventions extends over time, with minimal evidence of backfire effects from exposure to fact-checking corrections9,10. To curb the spread of misinformation, fact-checkers can employ two distinct framing strategies: they can either publish confirmation frames that replace misinformation with accurate information, or they can publish refutation frames that warn social... Choosing confirmations provides users with factually accurate content they can share with peers. Opting for refutations allows fact-checkers to decrease the sharing of inaccurate, misleading, or false content. The effectiveness of increasing “good” content versus reducing “bad” content has not been experimentally tested.

In this paper, we evaluate the impact of confirmation and refutation frames on the sharing behavior of social media users. The lack of studies measuring the impact of confirmation (TRUE) and refutation (FALSE) frames is surprising, given the central role content labeling plays in fact-checking interventions. As noted by Shin and Thorson, “[u]nlike traditional journalism, which emphasizes detached objectivity and adheres to the ‘he said, she said’ style of reporting, contemporary fact-checking directly engages in adjudicating factual disputes by publicly... 1. The decision to intervene using confirmation or refutation frames is an editorial choice that is independent of the source material13. Nature Human Behaviour volume 8, pages 1837–1838 (2024)Cite this article

Could online warning labels from fact-checkers be ineffective — or perhaps even backfire — for individuals who distrust fact-checkers? Across 21 experiments, we found that the answer is no: warning labels reduce belief in, and sharing of, posts labelled as false both on average and for participants who strongly distrust fact-checkers. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription Does fact-checking change what people think, believe, or do?

Sort of. But even if fact-checkers can’t convince everyone, their work promotes accountability, challenges misinformation, and fosters media literacy. Fact-checking has grown dramatically in recent years, fueled by concerns about misleading information circulated on social media – and by populist politicians promoting “alternative facts” and denouncing anything they don’t like as “fake news.”... Social scientists say it does, but only sort of: the direct impact of corrections is often very limited, especially for the kinds of groups most exposed to misinformation. Most academic research into fact-checking’s effectiveness is based on the United States. International fact-checkers including Africa Check (which covers multiple countries in sub-Saharan Arica), Chequeado (Argentina), and Full Fact (United Kingdom) have drawn similar conclusions, but they present them a bit differently, as in the blog...

Publishing fact-checked information has been shown generally to have a positive effect in terms of correcting inaccurate information. However, that effect is smaller in polarized contexts (such as during election campaigns) and among certain audiences (partisans with deeply held beliefs). Whether or not verification directly changes people’s minds though, fact-checkers work to hold elites accountable, teach audiences to handle dubious information appropriately, and promote good journalistic practice. At the same time, fact-checkers are actively developing strategies to improve the effectiveness of their work.

Does Fact Checking Work What The Science Says Nature

People Also Search

It Is Said That A Lie Can Fly Halfway Around

Nature Human Behaviour Volume 8, Pages 1957–1967 (2024)Cite This Article

While Warning Effects Were Smaller For Participants With Less Trust

It Is An Investigative Process That Relies On Experiments, Observations,

In Terms Of Helping To Convince People That Information Is