Abstract
This study investigated the cognitive processing of true and false political information. Specifically, it examined the impact of source credibility on the assessment of veracity when information comes from a polarizing source (Experiment 1), and effectiveness of explanations when they come from one's own political party or an opposition party (Experiment 2). These experiments were conducted prior to the 2016 Presidential election. Participants rated their belief in factual and incorrect statements that President Trump made on the campaign trail; facts were subsequently affirmed and misinformation retracted. Participants then re-rated their belief immediately or after a delay. Experiment 1 found that (i) if information was attributed to Trump, Republican supporters of Trump believed it more than if it was presented without attribution, whereas the opposite was true for Democrats and (ii) although Trump supporters reduced their belief in misinformation items following a correction, they did not change their voting preferences. Experiment 2 revealed that the explanation's source had relatively little impact, and belief updating was more influenced by perceived credibility of the individual initially purporting the information. These findings suggest that people use political figures as a heuristic to guide evaluation of what is true or false, yet do not necessarily insist on veracity as a prerequisite for supporting political candidates.
Highlights
Individuals from opposing sides of the political spectrum often disagree over what is fact and what is fiction
Planned comparisons revealed that Republican non-supporters were significantly more educated than Democrats, F1,1547 = 4.51; p = 0.034; MSE = 1.48, yet Democrats were significantly more educated than Trump supporters, F1,1547 = 8.82; p = 0.003; MSE = 1.48
When initially evaluating the veracity of both misinformation and factual statements, Republican supporters of Trump believed the information more when it was attributed to Trump, whereas the opposite occurred for Democrats
Summary
Individuals from opposing sides of the political spectrum often disagree over what is fact and what is fiction. Individuals have limited time and cognitive resources to comprehend complex topics such as policy or current affairs, and may use the perceived credibility of political figures as a heuristic to guide their evaluation of what is true or false. To study how individuals evaluate whether political information is true or false, we first examined the impact of source credibility on the initial assessment of information veracity. To this end, we used statements from perhaps the most polarizing political figure of recent times, President Trump. We investigated the impact of source credibility on the corrective effect of retracting misinformation and affirming factual statements
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
