When you have to correct a falsehood, open with the true statement, mention the falsehood once with a clear warning that it is false, and close by repeating the truth, so that the accurate version gets the prominent positions and the most repetitions.

How to do it

1. 1Lead with the fact, stated plainly and concretely. Do not open with the myth, the person who said it, or the word "not".
2. 2Warn before the myth: "A false claim is circulating that..." The warning, given before the claim, reduces the chance that it is stored as true.
3. 3State the falsehood once, briefly, without its most vivid wording or imagery, and say in a sentence why it is wrong or what trick it uses.
4. 4Return to the fact and end on it. If there is an explanation that fills the gap the myth was filling (what actually caused the event), give it here.
5. 5Keep it shorter than the myth was. A correction that is harder to process than the falsehood will lose to it.

When to use it

• •Writing a post, email, or announcement that has to address a rumour.
• •Correcting a relative or colleague in a group chat where others are reading.
• •Reporting on a public figure's false statement without amplifying it.
• •Briefing a team or community on a scam or hoax currently in circulation.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

The name was coined by the linguist George Lakoff in 2018 as advice to journalists covering false statements by politicians, drawing on his argument that repeating a frame strengthens it even when negating it. The structure matches the recommendation of the Debunking Handbook 2020 (Lewandowsky et al.), a consensus document by 22 misinformation researchers: fact first, warn, state the myth once, explain the fallacy, end on the fact. The ingredients have experimental support: warnings before exposure reduce reliance on misinformation, and corrections work better with an alternative explanation (Ecker et al. 2022). Evidence strength: moderate for the ingredients, weak for the ordering itself. When Swire-Thompson et al. (2021) directly compared myth-first, fact-first, and other correction formats, all formats reduced belief and the order made little difference. Treat the sandwich as a sound default that protects skimmers and headline-only readers, not as a proven improvement over any clear correction.

1. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University · link
   The consensus recommendation to lead with the fact, warn before the myth, explain the fallacy, and finish with the fact.
2. Swire-Thompson, B., Cook, J., Butler, L. H., Sanderson, J. A., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2021). Correction Format Has a Limited Role When Debunking Misinformation. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 6, 83
   Experiments finding that corrections work across formats and that the order of myth and fact matters little.
3. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The Psychological Drivers of Misinformation Belief and Its Resistance to Correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13-29
   Review of why misinformation persists after correction and which correction features (warnings, alternative explanations, repetition of the fact) help.
4. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing
   The framing argument behind the coinage: negating a frame still activates it. The term "truth sandwich" itself dates from Lakoff's public commentary in 2018.