ArticlePloS one2025
The motivation and consequence of fact-checking behavior: An experimental study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a series of online experiments, we asked people to evaluate news veracity and varied two experimental conditions: (1) the opportunity to receive fact-checking results and (2) bonus payment for accuracy. We tested three competing theories for fact-checking behavior: value of information (VoI), limited attention (LA), and motivated reasoning (MR). We find that monetary incentives do not promote fact-checking. Prior awareness of the news and perceived easiness in determining news authenticity significantly reduce fact-checking. Democrats are more likely to fact-check on the news aligning with Republicans' ideology, suggesting a tendency to seek information when there is a need to defend one's pre-existing belief. Overall, our results contradict VoI, show mixed evidence for MR, and support LA. When available, fact-checking consistently improves subjects' accuracy in evaluating news veracity by over 40%, underscoring the importance of promoting fact-checking in curbing misinformation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.