This study asks whether different debriefing styles in misinformation experiments change participants' beliefs, attitudes toward the study, and perceptions of transparency. Using a preregistered experiment in the United States, the authors compare no debriefing, a general warning debriefing, and a specific debriefing that includes fact‑checks and source links to see which approaches correct misperceptions without unduly increasing skepticism.
Preregistered U.S. experiment, Debriefing with fact‑checks, Perceived transparency improved
Data and methods
The authors report a preregistered online experiment (N = 896) conducted in the United States. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three post‑treatment conditions: no debriefing, a general debriefing that disclosed deception and warned about misinformation, or a specific debriefing that additionally provided fact‑checks and links to sources. The brief describes comparisons across these conditions; the abstract does not detail measurement instruments or sampling frame beyond sample size and country.
Main findings
According to the abstract, only the specific debriefing that included fact‑checks and source links reduced participants' belief in the false claims they had been shown. This reduction did not generalize to novel false claims not encountered during the experiment. The general debriefing slightly reduced belief in true news, which the authors note may indicate increased skepticism from generic warnings. Both debriefing types improved attitudes toward the study and increased perceived transparency.
- Specific debriefings with fact‑checks reduced belief in false claims participants had seen.
- General warnings had a small unintended effect of lowering belief in true news.
- Both debriefing types improved participants' views of the study and its transparency.
