Using a 2 (social endorsement: high vs. low) × 2 (AI comment type: approving vs. disapproving) experiment, we examine how AI-generated comments and social endorsement cues jointly influence information-seeking intentions in response to social media health misinformation. Results reveal a moderated-moderated mediation: When AI trustworthiness is high and social endorsement is low, debunking comments promote cognitive elaboration, which in turn increases information-seeking intentions. This pathway suggests that deeper cognitive processing of AI corrections makes individuals more receptive to seeking additional verification. When AI trustworthiness is low, debunking is largely ineffective. Notably, under low trustworthiness and endorsement, misinformation-supporting comments can unexpectedly elicit more elaboration, potentially triggering skepticism-driven information seeking. These findings underscore the importance of AI trustworthiness and reveal nuanced mechanisms in how individuals respond to AI-based health misinformation interventions, highlighting that cognitive elaboration serves as a critical bridge between AI interventions and behavioral intentions.
AraujoT.HelbergerN.KruikemeierS.de VreeseC. H. (2020). In AI we trust? Perceptions about automated decision-making by artificial intelligence. AI & Society, 35(3), 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00931-w
2.
BhatA.AgasheS.MohileN.OberoiP.JangirR.JoshiA. (2023, March27–31). Interacting with next-phrase suggestions: How suggestion systems aid and influence the cognitive processes of writing [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584060
3.
BodeL.VragaE. K. (2018). See something, say something: Correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Communication, 33(9), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312
BorahP.AustinE.SuY. (2023). Injecting disinfectants to kill the virus: Media literacy, information gathering sources, and the moderating role of political ideology on misperceptions about COVID-19. Mass Communication and Society, 26, 566–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2045324
6.
BorahP.XiaoX. (2018). The importance of “likes”: The interplay of message framing, source, and social endorsement on credibility perceptions of health information on Facebook. Journal of Health Communication, 23(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2018.1455770
7.
BorgesDoNascimentoI. J.Beatriz PizarroA.AlmeidaJ.Azzopardi-MuscatN.André GonçalvesM.BjörklundM.Novillo-OrtizD. (2022). Infodemics and health misinformation: A systematic review of reviews. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 100(9), 544–561. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.21.287654
ButlerL. H.FayN.EckerU. K. H. (2023). Social endorsement influences the continued belief in corrected misinformation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 12(3), 364–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000080
11.
ChoH.LeeJ.-S. (2008). Collaborative information seeking in intercultural computer-mediated communication groups: Testing the influence of social context using social network analysis. Communication Research, 35(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208315982
12.
ChoungH.DavidP.RossA. (2023). Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543
13.
ClarkJ. K.EvansA. T. (2014). Source credibility and persuasion: The role of message position in self-validation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(8), 1024–1036. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214534733
CollianderJ. (2019). “This is fake news”: Investigating the role of conformity to other users’ views when commenting on and spreading disinformation in social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.032
16.
DaiY.LeeJ.KimJ. W. (2024). AI vs. human voices: How delivery source and narrative format influence the effectiveness of persuasion messages. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(24), 8735–8749. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2288734
17.
De FreitasJ.AgarwalS.SchmittB.HaslamN. (2023). Psychological factors underlying attitudes toward AI tools. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1845–1854. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01734-2
18.
De MeulenaerS.De PelsmackerP.DensN. (2018). Power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and the effects of source credibility on health risk message compliance. Health Communication, 33(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1266573
19.
Di NoviC.KovacicM.OrsoC. E. (2024). Online health information seeking behavior, healthcare access, and health status during exceptional times. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 220, 675–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2024.02.032
20.
EdwardsC.BeattieA. J.EdwardsA.SpenceP. R. (2016). Differences in perceptions of communication quality between a Twitterbot and human agent for information seeking and learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.003
21.
EvelandW. P. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28(5), 571–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028005001
22.
EvelandW. P. (2002). News information processing as mediator of the relationship between motivations and political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900207900103
23.
EvelandW. P.ShahD. V.KwakN. (2003). Assessing causality in the cognitive mediation model: A panel study of motivations, information processing, and learning during campaign 2000. Communication Research, 30(4), 359–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203253369
24.
GunnL. J.Chapeau-BlondeauF.McDonnellM. D.DavisB. R.AllisonA.AbbottD. (2016). Too good to be true: When overwhelming evidence fails to convince. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 472(2187), 20150748. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2015.0748
25.
GuzmanA. L.LewisS. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
26.
HancockJ. T.NaamanM.LevyK. (2020). AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz022
27.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
28.
HimelboimI.XiaoX.LeeD. K. L.WangM. Y.BorahP. (2020). A social networks approach to understanding vaccine conversations on Twitter: Network clusters, sentiment, and certainty in HPV social networks. Health Communication, 35(5), 607–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573446
29.
HoS. S.PehX.SohV. W. L. (2013). The cognitive mediation model: Factors influencing public knowledge of the H1N1 pandemic and intention to take precautionary behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 18(7), 773–794. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2012.743624
30.
HohensteinJ.JungM. (2018, April21–26). AI-supported messaging: An investigation of human-human text conversation with AI support [Conference session]. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188487
31.
HovlandC. I.WeissW. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/266350
32.
HuangG.WangS. (2023). Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 73(6), 552–562. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024
33.
JackobN. (2008). Credibility effects. In DonsbachW. (Ed.), The Blackwell international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 3; pp. 1044–1047). Blackwell.
34.
JakeschM.BhatA.BuschekD.ZalmansonL.NaamanM. (2023, April23–28). Co-writing with opinionated language models affects users’ views [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hamburg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581196
35.
JiangS. (2024). Does social media promote or hinder health learning? The roles of media attention, information discussion, information elaboration, and information seeking experience. Mass Communication and Society, 27(4), 627–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2090961
36.
KhuranaD.KoliA.KhatterK.SinghS. (2023). Natural language processing: State of the art, current trends and challenges. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82(3), 3713–3744. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-13428-4
37.
KrepsS.McCainR. M.BrundageM. (2022). All the news that’s fit to fabricate: AI-generated text as a tool of media misinformation. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(1), 104–117. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2020.37
KumariT.DasA. (2024, December15–18). Towards development of an effective AI-based system for relevant comment generation [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of the Forum for Information Retrieval Evaluation, Panjim, India. https://doi.org/10.1145/3632754.3632770
40.
LabanP.VigJ.HearstM.XiongC.WuC.-S. (2024, October13–16). Beyond the chat: Executable and verifiable text-editing with LLMs [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Pittsburgh, PA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654777.3676419
41.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
42.
LeeE. W. J.ShinM.KawajaA.HoS. S. (2016). The augmented cognitive mediation model: Examining antecedents of factual and structural breast cancer knowledge among Singaporean women. Journal of Health Communication, 21(5), 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1114053
43.
LeeM. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1), 2053951718756684. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
44.
LeeS. S.LiangF.HahnL.LaneD. S.WeeksB. E.KwakN. (2021). The impact of social endorsement cues and manipulability concerns on perceptions of news credibility. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(6), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0566
45.
LiL.BautistaJ. R. (2021). Elaboration, cancer worry, and risk perception mediate the association between news attention on the internet and intention to uptake HPV vaccination: Extending the cognitive mediation model. International Journal of Communication, 15, 4862–4883.
46.
LinkE.BaumannE.KlimmtC. (2024). Understanding the importance of trust in patients’ coping with uncertainty via health information-seeking behaviors. Communications, 49(1), 74–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2021-0117
47.
LiuB. (2021). In AI we trust? Effects of agency locus and transparency on uncertainty reduction in human–AI interaction. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 384–402. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab013
48.
LuoC.ZhengH.TangY.YangX. (2025). I assume others are influenced by health misinformation on social media: Examining the underlying process of intentions to combat health misinformation. Online Information Review, 49, 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-02-2024-0103
49.
LuoM.HancockJ. T.MarkowitzD. M. (2022). Credibility perceptions and detection accuracy of fake news headlines on social media: Effects of truth-bias and endorsement cues. Communication Research, 49(2), 171–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220921321
50.
McCroskeyJ. C.YoungT. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510978109368075
51.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012
52.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.McCannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In KalbfleischP. J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook27 (pp. 293–335). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
53.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x
54.
MonteithS.GlennT.GeddesJ. R.WhybrowP. C.AchtyesE.BauerM. (2024). Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 224(2), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.136
55.
MoonW.-K.ChungM.Jones-JangS. M. (2023). How can we fight partisan biases in the COVID-19 pandemic? AI source labels on fact-checking messages reduce motivated reasoning. Mass Communication and Society, 26(4), 646–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2097926
56.
MooreD. L.HausknechtD.ThamodaranK. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1086/209049
57.
NassC.MoonY. (2000). Machines and mindlessness: Social responses to computers. Journal of Social Issues, 56(1), 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00153
58.
Newby-ClarkI. R.McGregorI.ZannaM. P. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(2), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.2.157
59.
NordgrenL. F.van HarreveldF.van der PligtJ. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.004
60.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
61.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (1st ed.). Springer.
62.
RainsS. A.TukachinskyR. (2015). An examination of the relationships among uncertainty, appraisal, and information-seeking behavior proposed in uncertainty management theory. Health Communication, 30(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.858285
63.
RhodesS. C. (2022). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news: How social media conditions individuals to be less critical of political misinformation. Political Communication, 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.1910887
64.
RobertsC. (2010). Correlations among variables in message and messenger credibility scales. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210376310
65.
SaeidniaH. R.HosseiniE.LundB.TehraniM. A.ZakerS.MolaeiS. (2025). Artificial intelligence in the battle against disinformation and misinformation: A systematic review of challenges and approaches. Knowledge and Information Systems, 67, 3139–3158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-024-02337-7
66.
Serra-GarciaM.GneezyU. (2023). Improving human deception detection using algorithmic feedback. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4495855
67.
ShahidF.DittgenM.NaamanM.VashisthaA. (2024, November5). Examining human-AI collaboration for co-writing constructive comments online [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2025 ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Yokohama, Japan. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.03295
68.
ShoaibM. R.WangZ.AhvanooeyM. T.ZhaoJ. (2023, November28–30). Deepfakes, misinformation, and disinformation in the era of frontier AI, generative AI, and large AI models [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Computer and Applications (ICCA), Cairo, Egypt. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCA59364.2023.10401723
69.
SkavronskayaL.MoyleB.ScottN. (2020). The experience of novelty and the novelty of experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 322. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00322
70.
SpitzerP.HolsteinJ.MorrisonK.HolsteinK.SatzgerG.KühlN. (2025). Don’t be fooled: The Misinformation effect of explanations in human-AI collaboration. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.12809
71.
StahlC.KlauerK. C. (2018). The effect of incongruency and cognitive load on short-term verbatim and gist memory in the Conjoint Recognition paradigm. In JohansenN. B. (Ed.), New research on short-term memory. Nova. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9yft4
72.
St. JeanB. (2017). Factors motivating, demotivating, or impeding information seeking and use by people with type 2 diabetes: A call to work toward preventing, identifying, and addressing incognizance. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23652
73.
StoltenbergC. D.DavisC. S. (1988). Career and study skills information: Who says what can alter message processing. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.1988.6.1.38
74.
SuY.FuH.ZhangF.DengT.BorahP. (2024). Accidently acquired? Examining the conditional indirect effects of social media incidental news exposure on knowledge of COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior, 152, 108046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.108046
75.
Suarez-LledoV.Alvarez-GalvezJ. (2021). Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
76.
SundarS. S. (2008). The MAIN model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J. (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility (pp. 73–100). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073
77.
SundarS. S.XuQ.Oeldorf-HirschA. (2009, April4–9). Authority vs. peer: How interface cues influence users [Conference session]. Proceedings of the CHI ’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520645
78.
SussmanS. W.SiegalW. S. (2003). Informational influence in organizations: An integrated approach to knowledge adoption. Information Systems Research, 14(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.14.1.47.14767
79.
TaumbergerN.JouraE. A.ArbynM.KyrgiouM.SehouliJ.GultekinM. (2022). Myths and fake messages about Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination: Answers from the ESGO Prevention Committee. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 32(10), 1316–1320. https://doi.org/10.1136/ijgc-2022-003685
80.
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2020). Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S3), S278–S280. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305916
81.
VragaE. K.KimS. C.CookJ.BodeL. (2020). Testing the effectiveness of correction placement and type on Instagram. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 25(4), 632–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220919082
82.
WalterN.BrooksJ. J.SaucierC. J.SureshS. (2021). Evaluating the impact of attempts to correct health misinformation on social media: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 36(13), 1776–1784. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1794553
83.
WangS. (2023). Factors related to user perceptions of artificial intelligence (AI)-based content moderation on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 149, 107971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107971
84.
WangS.-F.ChenC.-C. (2024). Exploring designer trust in artificial intelligence-generated content: TAM/TPB model study. Applied Sciences, 14(16), 6902. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14166902
85.
WangY.ThierK.NanX. (2023). HPV vaccine misinformation online: A narrative scoping review. In GinossarT.ShahS. F. A.WeissD. (Eds.), Vaccine communication online (pp. 35–55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24490-2_3
86.
WhiteheadH. S.FrenchC. E.CaldwellD. M.LetleyL.Mounier-JackS. (2023). A systematic review of communication interventions for countering vaccine misinformation. Vaccine, 41(5), 1018–1034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.12.059
87.
WilliamsG. Y.LimS. (2024). Psychology of AI: How AI impacts the way people feel, think, and behave. Current Opinion in Psychology, 58, 101835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101835
88.
XiaoX. (2024). Let’s verify and rectify! Examining the nuanced influence of risk appraisal and norms in combatting misinformation. New Media & Society, 26(7), 3786–3809. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221104948
89.
XuS.LiW. (2024). A tool or a social being? A dynamic longitudinal investigation of functional use and relational use of AI voice assistants. New Media & Society, 26(7), 3912–3930. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221108112
90.
ZengH.-K.LoS.-Y.LiS.-C. S. (2024). Credibility of misinformation source moderates the effectiveness of corrective messages on social media. Public Understanding of Science, 33(5), 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231215979
91.
ZhangL.YangX. (2021). Linking risk perception to breast cancer examination intention in china: Examining an adapted cognitive mediation model. Health Communication, 36(14), 1813–1824. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1796283
92.
ZhangR.LiH.ChenA.LiuZ.LeeY.-C. (2024). AI privacy in context: A comparative study of public and institutional discourse on conversational AI privacy in the US and Chinese social media. Social Media + Society, 10(4), 20563051241290845. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241290845
93.
ZhaoX.MaZ.XuS.AustinL. L. (2024). How information repertoire affects vaccine hesitancy: Processes of information verification and cognitive elaboration. Health Communication, 39(1), 62–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2154017
