Fact versus fiction labeling: Persuasion parity despite heightened scrutiny of fact

Two studies investigated the effect of fact or fiction labeling on the processing of advocacy communication. Labeling a communication as fact, rather than fiction, appeared to enhance critical processing (scrutiny). In 2 experiments, 392 students, who were low or high in need for cognition (NC) read a speech (nonnarrative). This discrepant speech, reported to be an actual event or a dramatic creation, enabled variation of label (fact/fiction), argument quality (strong/weak), and personal-outcome relevance (unspecified, Experiment 1; enhanced/reduced, Experiment 2). When personal relevance was unspecified (or reduced), speeches with a fact label instigated scrutiny for low-NC individuals; high-NC individuals engaged in scrutiny regardless of fact/fiction label. Under enhanced relevance, scrutiny was observed regardless of fact/fiction label and NC level. Across the experiments, communications labeled as fact were no more persuasive than those labeled as fiction.