Building Credibility in Polarized Environments: Evidence from Fact-Checking

Abstract

As misinformation spreads in contemporary societies, many actors such as journalists, educators, scientists, and civil society organizations seek to communicate facts to the public. These efforts can promote informed democracy if people find the evidence-based communicators credible. However, polarized environments often undermine the perceived credibility of these actors and marginalize their efforts. This dissertation examines choices and strategies available to evidence-based communicators to increase their credibility.

I begin by identifying contexts that promote or hinder the perceived credibility of information sources. I then conduct a series of experiments and surveys to test these factors in the context of fact-checking, a genre of news reporting that adjudicates the accuracy of public claims. In three chapters, I examine 1) symmetry in coverage of political parties, 2) the scope of topics covered, and 3) public attitudes toward news sources.

How does the coverage of political parties affect source credibility perceptions? In Chapter 1, I demonstrate that asymmetric coverage of political parties, even if it reflects genuine asymmetries in the generation of misleading claims, has the unintended consequence of undermining credibility. Although fact-checking sites often cover political parties asymmetrically to objectively reflect evidence, experimental findings show that asymmetric coverage reduces perceived source credibility. This is the case not only when the coverage challenges one’s own party more often, but even when it disproportionately challenges the opposing party. Symmetric coverage of political parties builds broad-based public perceptions of credibility in communicators who report on politics.

Another relevant question is how the breadth of topics covered affects perceptions of source credibility. Chapter 2 starts from the observation that while some fact-checkers focus on partisan politics, others report on a broader range of topics, such as science and popular culture. I experimentally test whether an exclusive focus on politics triggers defensive reactions that lower perceived source credibility, compared to sources that cover other topics. The results show that, compared to politics-focused coverage, specializing in science improves source credibility assessments. Unexpectedly, coverage of popular culture undermines judgments of source credibility. Evidence-based communicators are more successful at building credibility when they prioritize “serious” issues such as politics and science in their coverage, rather than “softer” varieties of issues such as entertainment, sports, and lifestyle.

Finally, I go beyond these experimental tests to examine how Americans currently assess evidence-based communicators in the news media. Prior research shows that most Americans have favorable views on fact-checking, but relatively few visit fact-checking sites. In Chapter 3, I investigate factors that limit public trust in fact-checking sites. In two surveys, I demonstrate that, in the abstract, people trust fact-checking more than the conventional news media. However, many people are unaware of specific fact-checking sites and trust conventional news outlets more than fact-checking sites. Contrary to the conventional view that Republicans tend to distrust fact-checking, familiarity with specific fact-checking sites is associated with greater trust in those sites among both Democrats and Republicans.

This study leverages fact-checking to research the psychological and social processes that occur when information sources seek to correct misinformation and foster a more informed public. Because source credibility, when properly established, can overwhelm partisan defenses against corrective messages, this work sheds light on how evidence-based communicators build credibility, a critical step toward effectively conveying facts to the public across time and contexts.