Purpose Fact-checks have emerged as tools to correct misinformation, with mainly experimental research demonstrating their positive effects. Additionally, the main focus of fact-check studies lies on specific knowledge correction, while fact-checkers’ democratic goals go beyond that. This study accommodates these methodological and conceptual limitations by investigating whether fact-checks can contribute to political knowledge (current affairs knowledge and contested issue knowledge). Design/methodology/approach The study relies on a three-wave panel (N = 2.214). Respondents ranged between 16 and 30 years old and data were gathered during the Belgian elections. Findings The results show that both exposure to and subsequent consumption of fact-checks are positively related to current affairs knowledge and contested issue knowledge on the between-person level. This means that people who generally see and read with fact-checks more often tend to have higher knowledge overall. On the within-person level, relationships between exposure and reading and knowledge effects were less straightforward. The irregular relationships suggest that short-term changes in fact-check exposure and reading do not consistently translate into knowledge gains. These results suggest that the relationship between exposure and reading of fact-checks and knowledge differs more between individuals over time than it does within one individual. Originality/value This study is one of the first to investigate fact-check exposure effects over a longer period of time, relying on panel data. Additionally, by going beyond specific fact-check knowledge and relying instead on more general measures of political knowledge, this study contributes to the current fact-checking literature by bridging the desired goals of fact-check organizations and potential knowledge outcomes. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-10-2025-0841
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Bart Hermans
Cato Waeterloos
Michaël Opgenhaffen
Online Information Review
KU Leuven
Hasselt University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Hermans et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d896a46c1944d70ce08315 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2025-0841
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: