Stronger together? Being part of an organizational coalition can influence perceptions of misinformation among political partisans

When like-minded organizations collaborate to promote a new initiative, audiences may interpret such coalitions as signals of increased credibility. Conversely, coalitions may also provoke distrust depending on audience members’ ideological alignment. Classic persuasion research suggests that information coming from multiple independent sources is typically perceived as more accurate than a single source, but, in today’s polarized climate, this “multiple source effect” may not hold. Little is known about how coalitions of partisan versus neutral organizations shape perceptions of accuracy, agreement, and malevolence in initiatives to counter misinformation. Addressing this gap, the present study tested these dynamics in two online experiments with U.S. participants (Study 1: N = 549 Republicans; Study 2: N = 564 Democrats), with a 2 (one vs. three sources) * 3 (congruent, incongruent, neutral source) + 1 (no source) experimental design. Results showed that partisan congruence consistently shaped evaluations, while source number alone had no effects. An interaction emerged in the Republican sample only, where multiple incongruent sources reduced perceived accuracy and agreement with the initiative relative to congruent or neutral coalitions.