Title:Robust Persuasive Effect of Political Fact-Checking and Remaining Challenges

Abstract:The proliferation of misinformation and the persistent gap in factual information among partisans represent significant concerns in contemporary U.S. politics. Fact-checking, a journalistic intervention aimed at verifying the accuracy of claims and information, is seen as a key strategy to address this issue. While early studies suggested a backfire effect, where strong partisans reinforce their existing beliefs when presented with counter-attitudinal corrections from fact-checkers, recent experimental evidence suggests this backfire effect is not replicable. Instead, fact-checking effectively updates the factual beliefs of even staunch partisans in line with fact-checked information. This presentation addresses two critical questions. First, to what extent is the persuasive effect of fact-checking effective across various scenarios? Through a series of randomized experimental designs, I demonstrate that the persuasive effect of fact-checking remains robust even when presented by an out-group source, when the credibility of fact-checkers is impaired, or when headlines are automatically tagged on social media posts. Second, how extensively do U.S. partisans consume fact-checking content, particularly cross-cutting fact-checking? By analyzing original articles from PolitiFact, their Twitter posts, and retweet patterns, I show that a disproportionate number of fact-checking articles written by PolitiFact, a major political fact-checking organization, are counter-attitudinal from the Republican standpoint. Furthermore, the sharing patterns of these fact-checking posts suggest that Republicans or conservatives rarely share such content amongst themselves, casting doubt on their exposure to cross-cutting fact-checking in their daily lives.