LAUSR

PurposeGiven the rapid growth in efforts on misinformation correction, the study aims to test how evidence type and veracity interact with news agreement on the effectiveness of fact-checking on how well a corrective message discount a false news information.Design/methodology/approachExperimental participants (N = 511) in Hong Kong were exposed to the same news article and then to a piece of corrective information debunking the news article with variation in the types of evidence (numerical vs narrative) and veracity (no verdict vs half false vs entirely false) in 2019.FindingsAmong the participants who disagreed with the news article, numerical fact-checking was more effective than narrative fact-checking in discounting the news article. Some evidence of the backfire effect was found among participants for whom the article was attitude incongruent.Originality/valueWhen debunking false information with people exposed to attitude-incongruent news, a milder verdict presented in the form of a half-false scale can prompt a more positive perception of the issue at stake than an entirely false scale, implying that a less certain verdict can help in mitigating the backfire effect compared to a certain verdict.