Analyses indicated that high power politicians (presidents) were seen as significantly more legitimate than low power politicians (congresspeople). Furthermore, politicians who were in a participant's ingroup were seen as significantly more legitimate than politicians who were either seen as neutral or as members of the outgroup. However, there wasn't a significant difference between the perceived legitimacy of neutral and outgroup politicians. Finally, an interaction of power and membership was observed. Ingroup participants perceived politicians low in power as somewhat more legitimate compared to outgroup participants, but politicians high in power were perceived as substantially more legitimate by the ingroup participants as compared to outgroup participants.

Results were echoed in participants' responses to fact checkers. The power of the politician did not have a significant effect on the perceived legitimacy of the fact checkers, but group membership did. Fact checkers who discredited a member of the participant's outgroup were seen as significantly more legitimate than fact checkers who discredited a member of the participant's ingroup or a neutral politician. There was no significant difference in perceived legitimacy of fact checkers who discredited an ingroup or neutral politician. An interaction of power and membership was observed. For politicians low in power, participants saw the fact checkers as somewhat more legitimate when the politician was an outgroup member as compared to an ingroup member. For politicians high in power, participants saw the fact checkers as substantially more legitimate when the politician was an outgroup member as compared to an ingroup member.

This study sheds light on how a propaganda technique known as the Firehose of Falsehood works by demonstrating the impact a politician's power and group affiliation has not only on their own perceived legitimacy, but also on the perceived legitimacy of the fact checkers who discredit them.