Whose Pants Are on Fire? Journalists Correcting False Claims are Distrusted More Than Journalists Confirming Claims

Do people trust journalists who provide fact-checks? Building upon research on negativity bias, two studies support the hypothesis that people generally trust journalists when they confirm claims as true, but are relatively distrusting of journalists when they correct false claims. In Study 1, participants read a real fact-check that corrected or confirmed a claim about politics or economics. In Study 2, participants read a real report that corrected or confirmed a marketing claim for one of several products. Participants in both studies had higher levels of distrust for journalists providing corrections, perceiving them as more likely to be lying and possessing ulterior motives. This effect held even among corrections consistent with respondents' prior beliefs (i.e., for claims that participants thought might be false). The results represent a novel reason why people distrust journalists and resist belief correction. We discuss implications for transparency in journalism, and for how journalists frame fact-checks.