Claim Negations vs. Fact Affirmations: Evidence of the Content and Effects of Fact-Check Headlines

Fact-checking has received a considerable amount of academic attention in recent years. While different elements of fact-checking have been subject of empirical research, this study focuses on the selection of headlines, a crucial but overlooked element of fact-check articles in an overburdened media environment characterised by selective avoidance. We examine the effectiveness of different types of headlines in refuting false claims in two phases. Firstly, based on a content analysis of fact-checks published in Dutch (N = 976), we identify the types of fact-check headlines and observe that claim negation and fact affirmation are two often-used forms of headline formulations to refute a false claim. Drawing on psycholinguistic studies, we explore the impact of these headline phrasings on cognitive processing, considering potential false memory inductions of negations. Through online survey experiments (N = 1500), we compared the effectiveness of both headline models in two different formats: as a full article and as an isolated headline on social media. Both experiments did not observe a general difference between negative and affirmative headlines, both are effective strategies in refuting false claims. The research provides insights into optimal headline approaches for fact-checking and correcting misinformation.