Facts About Fact-Checkers: Comparing Credibility Perceptions, Usage, and Sharing of Different Fact-Checking Sources

Abstract: Fact-checking provides an important tool in the fight against misinformation, yet fact-checks may only be effective to the extent that they are perceived as credible. This research provides a first look at such perceptions across a wide array of legacy and novel fact-check sources available today. An online survey of 993 participants and an experiment involving 1,002 participants were conducted to examine differences in credibility perceptions, usage, and sharing of fact-checks from professional fact-check organizations, mainstream news outlets, social media platforms, automated fact-check services, and crowdsourcing. Results show that legacy sources are considered most credible, fact-check receiver characteristics (political ideology, analytical thinking, and information literacy) influence perceptions of fact-checker credibility, and perceived credibility of fact-checkers is key to fact-check usage. Results also reveal that fact-checker source type and perceived credibility of fact-checkers are essential to fact-check sharing intention. Our findings advance the nascent concept of fact-checker credibility and contribute to theory, specifically the MAIN model and the stage framework model. They also offer novel data about new sources of fact-checking, including how AI and crowdsource-based fact-checkers are perceived by the public.