Fact Versus Fiction Labeling: Persuasion Parity Despite Heightened Scrutiny of Fact

Abstract

Two studies investigated the effect of fact or fiction labeling on the processing of advocacy communication. Labeling a communication as fact, rather than fiction, appeared to enhance critical processing (scrutiny). In 2 experiments, 392 students, who were low or high in need for cognition (NC) read a speech (nonnarrative). This discrepant speech, reported to be an actual event or a dramatic creation, enabled variation of label (fact/fiction), argument quality (strong/weak), and personal-outcome relevance (unspecified, Experiment 1; enhanced/reduced, Experiment 2). When personal relevance was unspecified (or reduced), speeches with a fact label instigated scrutiny for low-NC individuals; high-NC individuals engaged in scrutiny regardless of fact/fiction label. Under enhanced relevance, scrutiny was observed regardless of fact/fiction label and NC level. Across the experiments, communications labeled as fact were no more persuasive than those labeled as fiction.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 87 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.