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.

中文翻译：

---

谁的裤子着火了？纠正虚假消息的记者比确认消息的记者更不被信任


人们信任提供事实核查的记者吗？基于消极偏见的研究，两项研究支持这样的假设：当记者确认说法属实时，人们通常会信任记者，但当记者纠正虚假说法时，人们相对不信任记者。在研究 1 中，参与者阅读了真实的事实核查，纠正或证实了有关政治或经济的主张。在研究 2 中，参与者阅读了一份真实的报告，该报告纠正或证实了几种产品之一的营销主张。两项研究的参与者对提供纠正的记者都抱有更高程度的不信任，认为他们更有可能撒谎并且别有用心。即使在与受访者先前信念一致的修正中（即，对于参与者认为可能是错误的主张），这种效应仍然存在。研究结果揭示了人们不信任记者并抵制信念矫正的新原因。我们讨论对新闻透明度以及记者如何进行事实核查的影响。