Abstract
Chapter 14 describes a survey experiment conducted ahead of the 2016 California Democratic presidential primary, which examines the manner and extent to which perspective-threatening information from a reputable fact checker might influence mass perceptions of candidates, as well as perceptions of fact checkers themselves. The focus is on how such influence is (or is not) conditioned by (a) partisanship (intra- vs. interpartisan candidate comparisons), (b) intellectual elitism/populism, and (c) education. We find that a candidate’s detractors tend to remain steadfast in the face of evidence painting the candidate in a more positive light but that such evidence dramatically damages people’s evaluations of the fact-checking industry. This is especially, but not exclusively, the case among Republicans. Not only does education fail to temper such resistance to fact-checking; it actually enhances it to a significant degree.