Taking Fact-Checks Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Journalistic Fact-Checking on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability

  • Brendan Nyhan
  • Ethan Porter
  • Jason Reifler
  • Thomas J. WoodEmail author
Original Paper


Are citizens willing to accept journalistic fact-checks of misleading claims from candidates they support and to update their attitudes about those candidates? Previous studies have reached conflicting conclusions about the effects of exposure to counter-attitudinal information. As fact-checking has become more prominent, it is therefore worth examining how respondents respond to fact-checks of politicians—a question with important implications for understanding the effects of this journalistic format on elections. We present results to two experiments conducted during the 2016 campaign that test the effects of exposure to realistic journalistic fact-checks of claims made by Donald Trump during his convention speech and a general election debate. These messages improved the accuracy of respondents’ factual beliefs, even among his supporters, but had no measurable effect on attitudes toward Trump. These results suggest that journalistic fact-checks can reduce misperceptions but often have minimal effects on candidate evaluations or vote choice.


Fact checking Factual misconception Corrections Public opinion Misinformation Backfire effect 


Supplementary material

11109_2019_9528_MOESM1_ESM.tex (106 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 1 (TEX 106 kb)
11109_2019_9528_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (132 kb)
Electronic supplementary material 2 (PDF 132 kb)


  1. BBC. (2016). Post-truth’ declared word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. November 16, 2016. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from
  2. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan, M. P. S., Jones, C. R., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2017) Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological science, 28(11), 1531–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Flynn, D. J. (2016). The scope and correlates of political misperceptions in the mass public. Unpublished paper, Dartmouth College.Google Scholar
  5. Funk, C. L. (1999). Bringing the candidate into models of candidate evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 700–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graves, L. (2016). Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gross, K., Porter E., & Wood T. J. (2018) Identifying media effects through low-cost, multiwave field experiments. Political Communication. Scholar
  10. Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science. Google Scholar
  11. Hill, S. J. (2017). Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1403–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hochschild, J. L., & Einstein, K. L. (2015). Do facts matter? Information and misinformation in American politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jamieson, K. H. (2015). Implications of the demise of ‘Fact’ in political discourse. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 159(1), 66–84.Google Scholar
  14. Jarman, J. W. (2016). Motivated to ignore the facts: The inability of fact-checking to promote truth in the public sphere. In J. Hannan (Ed.), Truth in the public sphere. London: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  15. Khanna, K., & Sood, G. (2018). Motivated responding in studies of factual learning. Political Behavior, 40(1), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Krupnikov, Y., & Levine, A. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenz, G. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ performance and policies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lim, C. (2018). Checking how fact-checkers check. Research & Politics, 5(3), 2053168018786848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marietta, M., Barker, D. C., & Bowser, T. (2015). Fact-checking polarized politics: Does the fact-check industry provide consistent guidance on disputed realities? The Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 13(4), 577–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge & handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mummolo, J., & Peterson E. (2018) Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review. Scholar
  24. National Public Radio. (2016). Fact check: Trump And clinton debate for the first time. September 26, 2016. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from
  25. New York Times. (2016). Our fact checks of the first debate. September 26th, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2018, from
  26. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on elites: A field experiment on US state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (N.d.). Do people actually learn from fact-checking? Evidence from a longitudinal study during the 2014 campaign.” Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved June 28, 2017, from
  29. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pierce, P. A. (1993). Political sophistication and the use of candidate traits in candidate evaluation.Google Scholar
  31. Politico. (2016). Trump wrong on Michigan job losses. September 26, 2016. Retrieved November 11, 2017, from
  32. Porter, E., Wood, T. J., & Kirby, D. (2018). Sex trafficking, Russian infiltration, birth certificates, and pedophilia: A survey experiment correcting fake news. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(5), 304–331.Google Scholar
  33. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). A social cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  34. Schleifer, T. (2016). Paul Manafort doubts FBI statistics after agency spared Hillary. CNN, July 12, 2016. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from
  35. Spivak, C. (2011). The fact-checking explosion. American Journalism Review, 32, 38–43.Google Scholar
  36. Sullivan, E., & Day, C. (2016). AP FACT CHECK: Crime stats don’t back Trump’s dire view. Associated Press, July 13, 2016. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from
  37. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Uscinski, J., & Butler, R. (2013). The epistemology of fact checking. Critical Review, 25(2), 162–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wintersieck, A. L. (2017). Debating the truth: The impact of fact-checking during electoral debates. American Politics Research, 45(2), 304–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2018). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
  42. Young, D., Shannon, J. K. H. P., & Goldring, A. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ford School of Public PolicyUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Media and Public AffairsGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of PoliticsUniversity of ExeterExeterUK
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations