For political fact-checking enterprises to be effective, two conditions must be met. Voters must be interested in fact-checks, and the fact-checks must encourage voters to reevaluate their beliefs. Here, we study the former: whether voters are interested in reading fact-checks of political candidates’ statements. We use a simulated campaign environment in which participants’ exposure to fact-checks are voluntary. We find that voters are interested in fact-checking, especially for negative campaigns and personal (versus issue) campaigns. We also find that topics salient to voters are most often fact-checked. Finally, we provide evidence for the operation of a motivated reasoning process, as statements made by less preferred candidates were more deeply scrutinized.
AmazeenM. A. (2015). Revisiting the epistemology of fact-checking. Critical Review, 27(1), 1–22.
3.
AmazeenM. A. (2016). Checking the fact-checkers in 2008: Predicting political ad scrutiny and assessing consistency. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(4), 433–464.
4.
AmazeenM. A.VargoC.HoppT. (2019). Reinforcing attitudes in a gatewatching news era: Individual-level antecedents to sharing fact-checks on social media. Communication Monographs, 86(1), 112–132.
5.
AndersenD. J.DitontoT. (2018). Information and its presentation: Treatment effects in low-information vs. high-information experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 379–398.
6.
AndersenD. J.RedlawskD. P.LauR. R. (2019). The Dynamic Process Tracing Environment (DPTE) as a tool for studying political communication. Political Communication, 36, 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1579771
7.
AnsolabehereS.RoddenJ.SnyderJ. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 215–232.
8.
BerinskyA. J. (2017). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262.
9.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
10.
BlissettR. S. L. (2018). Proving I’m right: Charter school policy and selective exposure to information. Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802102
11.
CacioppoJ.GardnerW. (1999). Emotion. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 50, 191–214.
12.
CampanteF. R.DoQ. (2014). Isolated capital cities, accountability, and corruption: Evidence from US states. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2456–2481.
13.
CarpiniX. D.KeeterS.KennamerJ. D. (1994). Effects of the news media environment on citizen knowledge of state politics and government. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 71(2), 443–456.
14.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766.
15.
ChaikenS.LibermanA.EaglyA. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). Guilford.
16.
DiFonzoN.BordiaP. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. Diogenes, 54(1), 19–35.
17.
DufloE.HannaR.RyaS. P. (2012). Incentives work: Getting teachers to come to school. The American Economic Review, 102(4), 1241–1278.
18.
FerrazC.FinanF. (2008). Exposing corrupt politicians: The effects of Brazil’s publicly released audits on electoral outcomes. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 703–745.
19.
FridkinK.KenneyP. J.WintersieckA. (2015). Liar, liar, pants on fire: How fact-checking influences citizens’ reactions to negative advertising. Political Communication, 32(1), 127–151.
20.
GeerJ. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago.
21.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M.SinkinsonM. (2011). The effect of newspaper entry and exit on electoral politics. The American Economic Review, 101(7), 2980–3018.
GravesL.CherubiniF. (2016). The rise of fact-checking sites in Europe [Reuters institute digital news report]. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
24.
HigginsA.McIntireM.DanceG. J. X. (2016, November25). Inside a fake news sausage factory: “This is all about income.”The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com
25.
HolbrookA. L.KrosnickJ. A.VisserP. S.GardnerW. L.CacioppoJ. T. (2001). Attitudes toward presidential candidates and political parties: Initial optimism, inertial first impressions, and a focus on flaws. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 930–950.
26.
HrbkovaL.ZagrapanJ.ChytilekR. (2017). The demand side of negativity and privatization in news: Experimental study of news consumer habits. In Hošková-MayerováS.MaturoF.KacprzykJ. (Eds.), Studies in systems, decision, and control: Vol. 104. Mathematical-statistical models and qualitative theories for economic and social sciences (pp. 55–69). Springer.
27.
HumphreysM.WeinsteinJ. (2012). Policing politicians: Citizen empowerment and political accountability in Uganda preliminary analysis. Columbia University.
28.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19–39.
29.
IyengarS.HahnK. S.KrosnickJ. A.WalkerJ. (2008). Selective exposure to campaign communication: The role of anticipated agreement and issue public membership. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 186–200.
30.
JarmanJ. W. (2016). Influence of political affiliation and criticism on the effectiveness of political fact-checking. Communication Research Reports, 33(1), 9–15.
31.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
32.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D.PopkinS. L. (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153–182). Cambridge University Press.
33.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.
34.
LauR. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 119–138.
35.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.
36.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge University Press.
37.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter: Cambridge studies in public opinion and political psychology. Cambridge University Press.
38.
MaleskyE.SchulerP.TranA. (2012). The adverse effects of sunshine: A field experiment on legislative transparency in an authoritarian assembly. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 762–786.
39.
MariettaM.BarkerD. C.BowserT. (2015). Fact-checking polarized politics: Does the fact-check industry provide consistent guidance on disputed realities?The Forum, 13(4), 577. https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2015-0040
40.
MattesK.RedlawskD. P. (2014). The positive case for negative campaigning. The University of Chicago Press.
41.
MayhewD. R. (2004). Congress: The electoral connection (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
42.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.
43.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2015). The effect of fact-checking on elites: A field experiment on U.S. state legislators. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 628–640.
44.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ.UbelP. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 121–132.
45.
OlkenB. A. (2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200–249.
PeraltaC. B.WojcieszakM.LelkesY.de VreeseC. (2017). Selective exposure to balanced content and evidence type: The case of issue and non-issue publics about climate change and health care. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 833–861.
48.
PingreeR. J.BrossardD.McLeodD. M. (2014). Effects of journalistic adjudication on factual beliefs, news evaluations, information seeking, and epistemic political efficacy. Mass Communication and Society, 17(5), 615–638.
49.
PopkinS. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. University of Chicago Press.
50.
PrattoF.JohnO. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380–391.
51.
PriorM. (2006). The Incumbent in the living room: The rise of television and the incumbency advantage in U.S. House elections. The Journal of Politics, 68(3), 657–673.
52.
RedlawskD. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.
53.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniJ. W.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.
54.
Schulhofer-WohlS.GarridoM. (2013). Do newspapers matter? Short-run and long-run evidence from the closure of the Cincinnati Post. Journal of Media Economics, 26(2), 60–81.
55.
ShinJ.ThorsonK. (2017). Partisan selective sharing: The biased diffusion of fact-checking messages on social media. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 233–255.
56.
SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A.TetlockP. E. (1991). The role of heuristics in political reasoning: A theory sketch. In SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A.TetlockP.E. (Eds.), Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology (pp. 14–30). Cambridge University Press.
57.
SnyderJ. M.StrömbergD. (2010). Press coverage and political accountability. Journal of Political Economy, 118(2), 355–408.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
63.
ThorsonE. (2015). Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 33(3), 460–480.
64.
WardleC.DerakhshanH. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking (Council of Europe Report DGI(2017)09). Council of Europe.
65.
WintersieckA. L. (2017). Debating the truth. American Politics Research, 45(2), 304–331.
66.
WoodB. D.WatermanR. W. (1991). The dynamics of political control of the bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, 85(3), 801–828.
67.
WoodT.PorterE. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
