What does fact-checking do when traditional approaches fail at reducing public misinformation? Some research suggests it's ineffective. But this study posits that external monitoring could still influence political elites.

Strategy: A novel approach was tested — exposing state legislators to hypothetical reputational and electoral risks from questionable statements.

This field experiment involved randomly selected US state legislators before the 2012 election. ※︎ They received letters detailing potential negative consequences if misinformation were discovered or publicly questioned.

The results show a clear effect: Legislators receiving these threat-based communications demonstrated significantly better accuracy in their statements, as measured by fact-check ratings and public discourse analysis. This suggests that the reputational cost of being caught is an effective deterrent for political elites even when direct public impact isn't achieved.

Why It Matters:❤︎ This finding reframes fact-checking's purpose — focusing on its potential to improve quality in legislative discourse by targeting the concerns that matter most to those in power.