The truth sandwich format does not enhance the correction of misinformation.

The "truth sandwich" correction format, in which false information is bookended by factual information, has frequently been presented as an optimal method for correcting misinformation. Despite recurring recommendations, there is little empirical evidence for enhanced benefits. In two pre-registered experiments (total <i>N</i> = 1046), we evaluated the effectiveness of the truth sandwich correction format against a "bottom-loaded" refutation format, in which the misinformation is first presented prior to factual statements. In Experiment 1, participants first rated belief in cancer misinformation. The misinformation was then corrected using the truth sandwich, corrected using a bottom-loaded refutation, or left uncorrected (control). Participants subsequently rerated their belief in the claims. Experiment 2 replicated and extended Experiment 1 by including a two-week test delay. We found that both correction formats were highly effective. However, there was no evidence that the truth sandwich format enhanced the effectiveness of corrections either immediately after reading or after a two-week delay period, with Bayesian analyses providing consistent evidence for a null effect of correction format. We repeated our analyses isolated to participants who endorsed complementary and alternative medicines, given this subgroup is particularly likely to believe cancer misinformation. We again found no evidence for any superiority of the truth sandwich correction format. These findings suggest that clear and detailed corrections can be powerfully effective against misinformation regardless of format, and advocacy for the truth sandwich correction above other simpler formats are unwarranted.