Debriefings in Misinformation Research Should Include Fact-Checks to Reduce False Beliefs and Increase Perceived Learning

Debriefings are a cornerstone of ethical research, especially when deception is used. In (experimental) misinformation research, this often involves exposing participants to false claims without their awareness. Debriefings both disclose deception and act as interventions, warning participants about misinformation. Yet, unlike such interventions (e.g., fact-checking, media literacy tools) they reveal that researchers deliberately introduced the falsehoods, raising concerns about unintended effects on trust and skepticism. In a pre-registered U.S.-based experiment (N = 896), we compare the effects of no debriefing, a standard debriefing, and a specific debriefing that includes fact-checks and source links. We find that only the specific debriefing significantly reduced belief in false news. The standard debriefing slightly reduced belief in true news, suggesting that explicit warnings may heighten generalized skepticism. Both debriefings improved participants’ attitudes toward the study, increasing perceived transparency and reduced feelings of manipulation. These findings suggest that while general warnings may not reduce misperceptions and may come with small unintended side effects, specific debriefings can correct false beliefs and foster trust --- supporting their use as an ethical and effective practice in misinformation research.