Debunking COVID-19 falsehoods: a test of three cognitive predispositions as buffers for partisan influences

Purpose Existing evidence suggests that in a politically polarized country like the United States, partisanship frequently diminishes the effectiveness of fact-checks on falsehoods. Here we tested if debunking sources interact with cognitive predispositions to moderate partisanship-driven resistance to COVID-19 falsehood corrections. Design/methodology/approach A Qualtrics sample of US adults (N = 454) was recruited to experimentally test the likelihood that fact-checker warning labels on a false post versus user-posted debunks of the same falsehoods would moderate partisan receptivity to corrections. We also assessed whether cognitive predispositions (thinking styles, media literacy and trust in public health agencies) moderate debunking sources to buffer against partisan tendencies to believe debunked falsehoods. Findings Overall, Republicans exhibited stronger truth resistance than Democrats. Counter to expectation, thinking styles exacerbated the partisan divide and media literacy had no effect. However, trust in public health agencies buffered against partisan truth resistance for user but not fact-checker debunks, offering tentative evidence that some Republicans might have a reactive response against fact-checking. Originality/value Our research suggests that common strategies, such as promoting open-mindedness or media literacy education, are less effective at reducing differences in resistance to debunks driven by partisanship. We suggest that building institutional trust is a promising approach to bridging partisan divides in debunking effectiveness. We also demonstrate the robustness of Republican truth resistance, as this group is associated with low flexibility across levels of each cognitive predisposition.