Fighting lies with facts or humor: Comparing the effectiveness of satirical and regular fact-checks in response to misinformation and disinformation

Abstract

This study tested the effectiveness of fact-check format (regular vs. satirical) to refute different types of false information. Specifically, we conducted a pre-registered online survey experiment (N = 849) that compared the effects of regular fact-checkers and satirist refutations in response to mis- and disinformation about crime rates. The findings illustrated that both fact-checking formats–factual and satirical–were equally effective in lowering issue agreement and perceived credibility in response to false information. Instead of a backfire effect, moreover, the regular fact-check was particularly effective among people who agreed with the fact-check information; for satirical fact-checking, the effect was found across-the-board. Both formats were ineffective in decreasing affective polarization; it rather increased polarization under specific conditions (satire; agreeing with the fact-check).