This study investigates the efficacy of AI-generated visuals and potential credibility cues in correcting health-related misinformation. Using a pre-registered, factorial experiment (N = 1,751), we tested two AI-generated visual enhancements (visual exemplars, infographics) and two credibility boosters (source tagging, partisan neutrality in posting history). Findings revealed small but significant advantages of visual exemplars, but not infographics, over text-only corrections in reducing misbeliefs, primarily through mitigating psychological reactance. However, credibility cues did not significantly enhance correction effectiveness. Overall, the results suggest that AI-generated visual exemplars offer incremental persuasive benefits beyond textual correction alone.
BarariS.LucasC.MungerK. (2025). Political deepfakes are as credible as other fake media and (sometimes) real media. The Journal of Politics, 87(2), 510–526. https://doi.org/10.1086/732990
2.
BarmanD.GuoZ.ConlanO. (2024). The dark side of language models: Exploring the potential of LLMs in multimedia disinformation generation and dissemination. Machine Learning with Applications, 16, Article 100545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100545
3.
BigsbyE.BigmanC. A.GonzalezA. M. (2019). Exemplification theory: A review and meta-analysis of exemplar messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(4), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1681903
4.
BravermanJ. (2008). Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement. Communication Research, 35(5), 666–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650208321785
5.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
6.
BrennenJ. S.SimonF. M.NielsenR. K. (2021). Beyond (mis)representation: Visuals in COVID-19 misinformation. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 26(1), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220964780
7.
CapraroV.LentschA.AcemogluD.AkgunS.AkhmedovaA.BilanciniE.BonnefonJ.-F.Brañas-GarzaP.ButeraL.DouglasK. M.EverettJ. A. C.GigerenzerG.GreenhowC.HashimotoD. A.Holt-LunstadJ.JettenJ.JohnsonS.KunzW. H.LongoniC. . . VialeR. (2024). The impact of generative artificial intelligence on socioeconomic inequalities and policy making. PNAS Nexus, 3(6), Article pgae191. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae191
8.
ChenC.ShuK. (2023). Can LLM-generated misinformation be detected? arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13788.
9.
ChenZ. (2023). Ethics and discrimination in artificial intelligence-enabled recruitment practices. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02079-x
10.
ChungM.MoonW. K.Jones-JangS. M. (2023). AI as an apolitical referee: Using alternative sources to decrease partisan biases in the processing of fact-checking messages. Digital Journalism, 12(10), 1548–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2254820
11.
ComelloM. L. G.QianX.DealA. M.RibislK. M.LinnanL. A.TateD. F. (2016). Impact of game-inspired infographics on user engagement and information processing in an eHealth program. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(9), e237. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5976
12.
Dal CinS.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2004). Narrative persuasion and overcoming resistance. In KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 175–192). Psychology Press.
13.
DanV.ColemanR. (2024). “I’ll change my beliefs when I see it”: Video fact checks outperform text fact checks in correcting misperceptions among those holding false or uncertain pre-existing beliefs. Communication Research, 52(6), 778–802. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502241287870
14.
DeVernaM. R.YanH. Y.YangK. C.MenczerF. (2024). Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(50), e2322823121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322823121
15.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
16.
DixonG. N.McKeeverB. W.HoltonA. E.ClarkeC.EoscoG. (2015). The power of a picture: Overcoming scientific misinformation by communicating weight-of-evidence information with visual exemplars. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12159
17.
DomgaardS.ParkM. (2021). Combating misinformation: The effects of infographics in verifying false vaccine news. Health Education Journal, 80(8), 974–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/00178969211038750
18.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL. K.BrashierN.KendeouP.VragaE. K.AmazeenM. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
20.
FeatherstoneJ. D.ZhangJ. (2020). Feeling angry: The effects of vaccine misinformation and refutational messages on negative emotions and vaccination attitude. Journal of Health Communication, 25(9), 692–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1838671
21.
FlanaginA. J.WinterS.MetzgerM. J. (2020). Making sense of credibility in complex information environments: The role of message sidedness, information source, and thinking styles in credibility evaluation online. Information, Communication & Society, 23(7), 1038–1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1547411
22.
GardnerL.LeshnerG. (2016). The role of narrative and other-referencing in attenuating psychological reactance to diabetes self-care messages. Health Communication, 31(6), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.993498
23.
GawronskiB.NgN. L.LukeD. M. (2023). Truth sensitivity and partisan bias in responses to misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(8), 2205–2236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001381
24.
HaS.AhnJ. (2011). Why are you sharing others’ tweets?: The impact of argument quality and source credibility on information sharing behavior. ICIS 2011 Proceedings, Shanghai China, 4. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2011/proceedings/humanbehavior/4
25.
HameleersM.HarffD.SchmuckD. (2023). The alternative truth kept hidden from us: The effects of multimodal disinformation disseminated by ordinary citizens and alternative hyper-partisan media: Evidence from the US and India. Digital Journalism, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2023.2210616
26.
HameleersM.PowellT. E.Van Der MeerT. G.BosL. (2020). A picture paints a thousand lies? The effects and mechanisms of multimodal disinformation and rebuttals disseminated via social media. Political Communication, 37(2), 281–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1674979
27.
HeleyK.GaysynskyA.KingA. J. (2022). Missing the bigger picture: The need for more research on visual health misinformation. Science Communication, 44(4), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221113833
28.
HemsleyJ.SnyderJ. (2018). FIVE dimensions of visual misinformation in the emerging media landscape. In B. G. Southwell, E. A. Thorson, & L. Sheble (Eds.), Misinformation and mass audiences (pp. 91–106). University of Texas Press.
29.
HenkeJ.LeissnerL.MöhringW. (2020). How can journalists promote news credibility? Effects of evidences on trust and credibility. Journalism Practice, 14(3), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2019.1605839
30.
HoffmanJ. (2019). One more time, with big data: Measles vaccine doesn’t cause autism. The New York Times, 7.
31.
HorneB. D.NevoD.O’DonovanJ.ChoJ. H.AdalıS. (2019, July). Rating reliability and bias in news articles: Does AI assistance help everyone? Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media, 13(1), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v13i01.3226
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
34.
HuangY.SundarS. S. (2022). Do we trust the crowd? Effects of crowdsourcing on perceived credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 37(1), 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1824662
35.
HuangY.WangW. (2022). When a story contradicts: Correcting health misinformation on social media through different message formats and mechanisms. Information, Communication & Society, 25, 1192–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1851390
36.
ImaiK.KeeleL.YamamotoT. (2010). Identification, inference and sensitivity analysis for causal mediation effects. Statistical Science, 25(1), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.1214/10-STS321
37.
JebaiR.AsfarT.NakkashR.ChehabS.WuW.BursacZ.MaziakW. (2023). Impact of pictorial health warning labels on smoking beliefs and perceptions among waterpipe smokers: An online randomised cross-over experimental study. Tobacco Control, 32(6), 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057202
38.
JiaC.LiuR. (2021). Algorithmic or human source? Examining relative hostile media effect with a transformer-based framework. Media and Communication, 9(4), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i4.4164
KhanS. A.SheikhiG.OpdahlA. L.RabbiF.StoppelS.TrattnerC.Dang-NguyenD. T. (2023). Visual user-generated content verification in journalism: An overview. IEEE Access, 11, 6748–6769.
41.
KimH. S.BigmanC. A.LeaderA. E.LermanC.CappellaJ. N. (2012). Narrative health communication and behavior change: The influence of exemplars in the news on intention to quit smoking. Journal of Communication, 62(3), 473–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01644.x
42.
KimJ. J.UmR. S.LeeJ. W.AjiloreO. (2024). Generative AI can fabricate advanced scientific visualizations: Ethical implications and strategic mitigation framework. AI and Ethics, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00439-0
KingA. J.LazardA. J. (2020). Advancing visual health communication research to improve infodemic response. Health Communication, 35(14), 1723–1728. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1838094
LaVoieN. R.QuickB. L.RilesJ. M.LambertN. J. (2017). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research, 44(3), 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215609669
47.
LeeE. J. (2020). Authenticity model of (mass-oriented) computer-mediated communication: Conceptual explorations and testable propositions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz025
48.
LeeE. J.KimY. W. (2016). Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society, 18(8), 1579–1598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814567982
49.
LeeJ.HameleersM. (2024). Effects of health-related deepfakes on misperceptions: Moderating effects of issue relevance and accuracy motivation. Media Psychology, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2024.2401539
50.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
51.
LiJ. (2025). Not all skepticism is “healthy” skepticism: Theorizing accuracy-and identity-motivated skepticism toward social media misinformation. New Media & Society, 27(1), 522–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231179941
52.
LiJ.WagnerM. W. (2020). The value of not knowing: Partisan cue-taking and belief updating of the uninformed, the ambiguous, and the misinformed. Journal of Communication, 70(5), 646–669. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa022
53.
LiuA.ShengQ.HuX. (2024, July). Preventing and detecting misinformation generated by large language models. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (pp. 3001–3004). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3626772.3661377
54.
LoL. Y. H.GuptaA.ShigyoK.WuA.BertiniE.QuH. (2022, June). Misinformed by visualization: What do we learn from misinformative visualizations?. Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3), 515–525.
55.
LongD.MagerkoB. (2020, April). What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–16). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376727
56.
LuY.ShenC. (2023). Unpacking multimodal fact-checking: Features and engagement of fact-checking videos on Chinese TikTok (Douyin). Social Media+ Society, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150406
57.
MenaP. (2023). Reducing misperceptions through news stories with data visualization: The role of readers’ prior knowledge and prior beliefs. Journalism, 24(4), 729–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211028762
58.
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. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27(1), 293–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2003.11679029
59.
MillerC. H.BurgoonM.GrandpreJ.AlvaroE. (2006). Identifying principal risk factors for the initiation of adolescent smoking behaviors: The significance of psychological reactance. Health Communication, 19, 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc1903_6
60.
MillerC. H.LaneL. T.DeatrickL. M.YoungA. M.PottsK. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x
61.
MoonW.-K.ChungM.Jones-JangS. Mo. (2022). 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
62.
MotokiF.Pinho NetoV.RodriguesV. (2024). More human than human: measuring ChatGPT political bias. Public Choice, 198(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-023-01097-2
63.
NeumannM.MooreS. T.BaumL. M.OleinikovP.XuY.NiederdeppeJ.GollustS. E.FowlerE. F. (2024). Politicizing masks? Examining the volume and content of local news coverage of face coverings in the US through the COVID-19 pandemic. Political Communication, 41(1), 66–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2239181
64.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2018). The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 29(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061
65.
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
66.
OccaA.SuggsL. S. (2015). Communicating breast cancer screening with young women: An experimental test of didactic and narrative messages using video and infographics. Journal of Health Communication, 21(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018611
67.
O’KeefeD. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13(3), 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00292.x
68.
OphirY.BrennanE.MaloneyE. K.CappellaJ. N. (2019). The effects of graphic warning labels’ vividness on message engagement and intentions to quit smoking. Communication Research, 46(5), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217700226
69.
PengQ.LuY.PengY.QianS.LiuX.ShenC. (2024). Crafting synthetic realities: Examining visual realism and misinformation potential of photorealistic AI-generated images. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.17484.
70.
PengY. (2022). Athec: A Python Library for computational aesthetic analysis of visual media in social science research. Computational Communication Research, 4(1), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.5117/CCR2022.1.009.PENG
71.
PengY.LuY.ShenC. (2023). An Agenda for studying credibility perceptions of visual misinformation. Political Communication, 40(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2175398
72.
PennycookG.RandD. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521–2526. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1806781116
73.
PorterE.RussellK. (2018). Migrants are on the rise around the world, and myths about them are shaping attitudes. New York Times, 20.
QuickB. L.ShenL.DillardJ. P. (2013). Reactance theory and persuasion. In DillardJ. P.ShenL. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 167–183). SAGE Publications.
76.
QuickB. L.StephensonM. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 34(3), 448–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00328.x
RainsS. A.TurnerM. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00298.x
79.
RatcliffC. L.SunY. (2020). Overcoming resistance through narratives: Findings from a meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 46(4), 412–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz017
80.
RatcliffC. L.KingA. J.WickeR.PokharelM.AdamsD. R.RatcliffC. L.KingA. J.WickeR.PokharelM.AdamsD. R.JensenJ. D. (2025). Examining Reactance to Visual and Verbal Features of Mask Promotion PSAs. Journal of Health Communication, 30(sup 1), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2437039
RingoldD. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25(1), 27–63. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014588126336
83.
RosenblumH. G.LewisR. M.GarganoJ. W.QuerecT. D.UngerE. R.MarkowitzL. E. (2022). Human papillomavirus vaccine impact and effectiveness through 12 years after vaccine introduction in the United States, 2003 to 2018. Annals of Internal Medicine, 175(7), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.7326/M21-3798
84.
RutinowskiJ.FrankeS.EndendykJ.DormuthI.RoidlM.PaulyM. (2024). The self-perception and political biases of ChatGPT. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2024(1), Article 7115633. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/7115633
85.
ShaoC.CiampagliaG. L.VarolO.YangK.-C.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2018). The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nature Communications, 9(1), 4787. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7
86.
ShenC.KasraM.WenjingP.BassettG. A.MallochY.O’BrienJ. F. (2019). Fake images: The effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society, 21(2), 438–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818799526
87.
ShenL. (2010). Mitigating psychological reactance: The role of message-induced empathy in persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36(3), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01381.x
88.
SilviaP. J. (2006). Reactance and the dynamics of disagreement: Multiple paths from threatened freedom to resistance to persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 673–685. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v36:5v
89.
SlaterD. M.PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2015). Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679170
90.
SunL.WeiM.SunY.SuhY. J.ShenL.YangS. (2024). Smiling women pitching down: auditing representational and presentational gender biases in image-generative AI. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(1), Article zmad045. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad045
91.
SunY.LuF. (2022). How misinformation and rebuttals in online comments affect people’s intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines: The roles of psychological reactance and misperceptions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 100(1), 145–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990221084606
92.
SunY.PendyalaV.LianR.XinH.PatelP.BucyE. P.ShahD. V. (2025). From Internet meme to the mainstream: Using computer vision to track “Pepe the Frog” across news platforms. Visual Communication Quarterly, 32(1), 33–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/15551393.2025.2455495
93.
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.
94.
SundarS. S. (2020). Rise of machine agency: A framework for studying the psychology of human–AI interaction (HAII). Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(1), 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmz026
95.
SundarS. S.KimJ. (2019, May). Machine heuristic: When we trust computers more than humans with our personal information. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–9). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300768
96.
SundarS. S.MolinaM. D.ChoE. (2021). Seeing is believing: Is video modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messaging apps?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 26(6), 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab010
97.
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
VragaE. K.BodeL. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017731776
100.
WahbehA.Al-RamahiM.El-GayarO.ElnoshokatyA.NasralahT. (2023, December). Perception of bias in ChatGPT: Analysis of social media data. 2023 IEEE Global Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things (GCAIoT) (pp. 34–39). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GCAIoT61060.2023.10385099
101.
WalterN.CohenJ.HolbertR. L.MoragY. (2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1668894
102.
XuK.ShiJ. (2024). Visioning a two-level human–machine communication framework: initiating conversations between explainable AI and communication. Communication Theory, 34(4), 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae016
103.
YangY.DavisT.HindmanM. (2023). Visual misinformation on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 73(4), 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac051
104.
YoungD. G.JamiesonK. H.PoulsenS.GoldringA. (2018). Fact-checking effectiveness as a function of format and tone: Evaluating FactCheck.org and FlackCheck.org. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017710453
105.
ZhangJ.FeatherstoneJ. D.CalabreseC.WojcieszakM. (2021). Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Preventive Medicine, 145, Article 106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106408
106.
ZhangY.LiY.CuiL.CaiD.LiuL.FuT.HuangX.ZhaoE.ZhangY.ChenY.WangL.LuuA. T.BiW.ShiF.ShiS. (2023). Siren’s song in the AI ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219.
107.
ZhouA.LiuW.YangA. (2024). Politicization of science in COVID-19 vaccine communication: Comparing US politicians, medical experts, and government agencies. Political Communication, 41(4), 649–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2201184
ZillmannD.BrosiusH.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
110.
ZillmannD.BrosiusH. B. (2012). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
