How Single vs. Multiple-Statement Fact-Checking and Partisan Identity Influence Individuals’ Trust in Counter-Attitudinal Political Fact-Checks

We examined individuals’ responses to counter-attitudinal fact-checks of politicians with whom they share political beliefs using the theories of social identity and cognitive dissonance. Drawing insights from a sample of 561 participants recruited via an experiment-embedded survey (<i>N</i> = 561), the findings suggested the influence of in- and out-group feelings on the level of trust in counter-attitudinal fact-checking. Perceived political closeness was an impactful predictor of trust in fact-checking, particularly among those who identified a Republican politician as a political in-group. Partisans generally were not likely to trust fact-checkers whose verdicts were against their favored political candidate. Meanwhile, individuals tended to have more trust in fact-checks that included political candidates from different parties compared to those including only one candidate, particularly when they were exposed to multiple misstatement fact-checks. Further practical implications for fact-checkers and journalists, as well as theoretical contributions for social identity and cognitive dissonance, were discussed.