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...
Hermans et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d896a46c1944d70ce08315 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-10-2025-0841
Bart Hermans
Cato Waeterloos
Michaël Opgenhaffen
Online Information Review
KU Leuven
Hasselt University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...