Aggregated fact-checks, partisanship, and perceptions of candidate honesty

David C. Barker,Danielle Joesten Martin,Kim L. Nalder

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2019.1686394

2019-11-17

Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

Abstract:Evidence of journalistic fact-checking's capacity to correct misperceptions is mixed, and evidence of its capacity to alter candidate appraisals is even more limited. However, to date, investigators have pursued such evidence only as it relates to <i>atomized</i> factual corrections on the part of fact-checkers, rather than <i>aggregated</i> appraisals of candidate truthfulness—the latter of which have become common from non-partisan fact-checkers such as <i>Politifact</i>. Furthermore, little research has considered the specific characteristics that may condition voters' willingness to be persuaded by information provided by fact checkers. In the population-based survey experiment described herein, conducted just before the 2016 California Democratic presidential primary, we assess the persuasive impact of an infographic comparing candidates' factual accuracy, as judged by fact-checks conducted by Politifact over time. Our findings suggest that such summary information is not likely to alter <i>inter-partisan</i> candidate appraisals, but they may affect <i>intra-partisan</i> ones—at least among Democratic primary voters. These results add some clarity regarding the conditions under which fact-checking can influence voter decision-making.