Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates whether source expertise (expert vs. non-expert), use of artificial intelligence (AI; AI vs. non-AI), and the placement (debunking vs. prebunking) of a correction influence its effectiveness in reducing misperceptions and intentions to consume raw milk. Results of a pre-registered two-wave online experiment (N₁ = 1,785, N₂ = 1,568) suggest that debunking consistently reduces misperceptions and behavioral intentions for at least 1 week, while prebunking was less effective. Expert corrections only outperform non-expert corrections in reducing misperceptions in wave 1. In general, AI cues do not significantly influence the effectiveness of a correction, offering both opportunities and challenges for organizations hoping to automate corrections.

Keywords

artificial intelligence placements expert corrections WHO

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahn

Bergan

D. E.

Carnahan

(2023). Estimating the impact of immediate versus delayed corrections on belief accuracy. Communication Monographs, 90(3), 372–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2023.2202728

Aïmeur

Amri

Brassard

(2023). Fake news, disinformation and misinformation in social media: A review. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 13(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-023-01028-5

Amazeen

M. A.

Krishna

Eschmann

(2022). Cutting the bunk: Comparing the solo and aggregate effects of prebunking and debunking Covid-19 vaccine misinformation. Science Communication, 44(4), 387–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221111558

Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2025, March 14). With Bird Flu in Raw Milk, Many Still Do Not Know Risks of Consuming It. https://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/with-bird-flu-in-raw-milk-many-in-u-s-still-do-not-know-risks-of-consuming-it/

Banas

J. A.

Rains

S. A.

(2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77(3), 281–311. https://doi.org/10/c36ndk

Bautista

J. R.

Zhang

Gwizdka

(2021). US physicians’ and nurses’ motivations, barriers, and recommendations for correcting health misinformation on social media: Qualitative interview study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 7(9), 9. https://doi.org/10.2196/27715

Bautista

J. R.

Zhang

Gwizdka

(2024). Correcting vaccine misinformation on social media: Effect of social correction methods on vaccine skeptics’ intention to take COVID-19 vaccine. New Media & Society, 26(12), 7412–7438. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231169697

Betsch

Renkewitz

Betsch

Ulshöfer

(2010). The influence of vaccine-critical websites on perceiving vaccination risks. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(3), 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309353647

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

(2025). Observed correction: How we can all respond to misinformation on social media. Oxford University Press.

10.

Bode

Vraga

E. K.

Tang

(2023). User correction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101786

11.

Cazzamatta

(2025). The content homogenization of fact-checking through platform partnerships: A comparison between eight countries. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 102(1), 120–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990241261725

12.

CBS NEWS. (2024, August 31). Growing online movement promotes raw milk despite health warnings—CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/video/growing-online-movement-promotes-raw-milk-despite-health-warnings/

13.

CDC. (2024, December 26). Highly pathogenic Avian influenza A(H5N1) Virus: Interim recommendations for prevention, monitoring, and public health investigations. https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/prevention/hpai-interim-recommendations.html

14.

Christner

Merz

Barkela

Jungkunst

Von Sikorski

(2024). Combatting climate disinformation: Comparing the effectiveness of correction placement and type. Environmental Communication, 18(6), 729–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2316757

15.

Chung

Moon

W.-K.

Jones-Jang

S. M.

(2024). 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

16.

Collins

Hoang

D. T.

Nguyen

N. T.

Hwang

(2021). Trends in combating fake news on social media—A survey. Journal of Information and Telecommunication, 5(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751839.2020.1847379

17.

Cook

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One, 12(5), e0175799. https://doi.org/10/f96cp5

18.

Costello

T. H.

Pennycook

Rand

D. G.

(2024). Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI. Science, 385(6714), eadq1814. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq1814

19.

Deiana

Dettori

Arghittu

Azara

Gabutti

Castiglia

(2023). Artificial intelligence and public health: Evaluating ChatGPT responses to vaccination myths and misconceptions. Vaccines, 11(7), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071217

20.

DeVerna

M. R.

Yan

H. Y.

Yang

K.-C.

Menczer

(2024). Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(50), e2322823121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322823121

21.

Douglas

B. D.

Ewell

P. J.

Brauer

(2023). Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA. PLoS One, 18(3), e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720

22.

Ecker

U. K. H.

Lewandowsky

Cook

Schmid

Fazio

L. K.

Brashier

Kendeou

Vraga

E. K.

Amazeen

M. A.

(2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

23.

Featherstone

J. D.

Zhang

(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

24.

FDA. (2024a, May 30). The dangers of raw milk: Unpasteurized milk can pose a serious health risk. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-can-pose-serious-health-risk

25.

FDA. (2024b, December 30). Investigation of Avian influenza A (H5N1) virus in dairy cattle. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/alerts-advisories-safety-information/investigation-avian-influenza-h5n1-virus-dairy-cattle

26.

Graefe

Bohlken

(2020). Automated journalism: A meta-analysis of readers’ perceptions of human-written in comparison to automated news. Media and Communication, 8(3), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i3.3019

27.

Greene

C. M.

Murphy

(2023). Debriefing works: Successful retraction of misinformation following a fake news study. PLoS One, 18(1), e0280295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280295

28.

Hameleers

(2024a). Cheap versus deep manipulation: The effects of cheapfakes versus deepfakes in a political setting. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36(1), edae004. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae004

29.

Hameleers

(2024b). The state-of-the-art in combating mis- and disinformation: Lessons from pre- and debunking approaches. In Frau-Meigs

Corbu

(Eds.), Disinformation debunked (pp. 19–36). Routledge.

30.

Hameleers

van der Meer

T. G. L. A

. (2020). Misinformation and polarization in a high-choice media environment: How effective are political fact-checkers? Communication Research, 47(2), 227–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218819671

31.

Ahamad

Kumar

(2023). Reinforcement learning-based counter-misinformation response generation: A case study of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, Austin, TX, USA, 30 April 2023 (pp. 2698–2709). Association for Computing Machinery.

32.

Horvath

Abbruzzese

Goggin

(2025, January 7). Meta is ending its fact-checking program in favor of a “community notes” system similar to X’s. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/meta-ends-fact-checking-program-community-notes-x-rcna186468

33.

Huang

Wang

(2023). Is artificial intelligence more persuasive than humans? A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 7(3), jqad024. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad024

34.

Huh

Kubin

von Sikorski

(2025). Can AI-generated news reduce hostile media perceptions? Findings from two experiments. Frontiers in Communication, 10, 1484186. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1484186

35.

Hund

(2023). The influencer industry: The quest for authenticity on social media. Princeton University Press.

36.

Jolley

Douglas

K. M.

(2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS One, 9(2), e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

37.

Karinshak

Liu

S. X.

Park

J. S.

Hancock

J. T.

(2023). Working with AI to persuade: Examining a large language model’s ability to generate pro-vaccination messages. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3579592

38.

KFF. (2025, March 13). Poll: Most republicans do not trust CDC on bird flu. https://www.kff.org/health-information-and-trust/press-release/poll-most-republicans-do-not-trust-cdc-on-bird-flu/

39.

Kubin

von Sikorski

(2024). The polarizing content warning: How the media can reduce affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 50(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae006

40.

Lando

A. M.

Bazaco

M. C.

Parker

C. C.

Ferguson

(2022). Characteristics of US Consumers reporting past year intake of raw (unpasteurized) milk: results from the 2016 food safety survey and 2019 food safety and nutrition survey. Journal of Food Protection, 85(7), 1036–1043.

41.

Lee

Bissell

(2024). User agency–based versus machine agency–based misinformation interventions: The effects of commenting and AI fact-checking labeling on attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccination. New Media & Society, 26(12), 6817–6837. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231163228

42.

Lelo

(2024). Fostering artificial intelligence to face misinformation: Discourses and practices of automated fact-checking in Brazil. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(2), 320–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231207963

43.

Lewandowsky

van der Linden

(2021). Countering misinformation and fake news through inoculation and prebunking. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 348–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1876983

44.

Liew

T. W.

Tan

S.-M.

(2021). Social cues and implications for designing expert and competent artificial agents: A systematic review. Telematics and Informatics, 65, 101721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101721

45.

Lim

Schmälzle

(2024). The effect of source disclosure on evaluation of AI-generated messages. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100058

46.

X.-D.

(2023). Psychological inoculation for credibility assessment, sharing intention, and discernment of misinformation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 25(1), e49255. https://doi.org/10.2196/49255

47.

McGuire

Papageorgis

(1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief-defense in producing immunity against persuasion. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042026

48.

Meinert

Krämer

N. C.

(2022). How the expertise heuristic accelerates decision-making and credibility judgments in social media by means of effort reduction. PLoS One, 17(3), e0264428. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264428

49.

Mendelson

(2011). “In bacteria land”: the battle over raw milk. Gastronomica: The Journal of Food and Culture, 11(1), 35–43.

50.

Meta. (2025). Introducing community notes—Adding context to posts | meta. https://about.meta.com/technologies/community-notes/

51.

Micallef

Kumar

Ahamad

Memon

(2020). The role of the crowd in countering misinformation: A case study of the COVID-19 infodemic. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 748–757). Atlanta, GA, USA.

52.

Monteith

Glenn

Geddes

J. R.

Whybrow

P. C.

Achtyes

Bauer

(2024). Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 224(2), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2023.136

53.

Murphy

Laurent

Reynolds

Aftab

Hegarty

Sun

Greene

C. M.

(2023). What do we study when we study misinformation? A scoping review of experimental research (2016–2022). Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 4(6), 130. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-130

54.

Nguyen

N. P.

Yan

Thai

M. T.

Eidenbenz

(2012). Containment of misinformation spread in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual ACM Web Science Conference, Illinois, Evanston, 22 June 2012 (pp. 213–222). Association for Computing Machinery.

55.

S. S.

(2024). Factors associated with information credibility perceptions: A meta-analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 101(2), 346–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990231222556

56.

Pearson

G. D.

Knobloch-Westerwick

(2018). Perusing pages and skimming screens: Exploring differing patterns of selective exposure to hard news and professional sources in online and print news. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3580–3596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818755565

57.

Pennycook

Cannon

T. D.

Rand

D. G.

(2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465

58.

Pluviano

Watt

Pompéia

Ekuni

Della Sala

(2022). Forming and updating vaccination beliefs: Does the continued effect of misinformation depend on what we think we know? Cognitive Processing, 23(3), 367–378.

59.

Prike

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2023). Effective correction of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 54, 101712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101712

60.

Reis

Kunde

(2024). Influence of believed AI involvement on the perception of digital medical advice. Nature Medicine, 30(11), 3098–3100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03180-7

61.

Roozenbeek

van der Linden

Goldberg

Rathje

Lewandowsky

(2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), eabo6254. https://doi.org/10/gqp2r8

62.

Sun

Pan

(2025). Self-correction or other-correction: The effects of source consistency and ways of correction on sharing intention of health misinformation correction. Health Communication, 40(3), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2346674

63.

Tan

A. S.

Lee

C. J.

Chae

(2015). Exposure to health (mis) information: Lagged effects on young adults’ health behaviors and potential pathways. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 674–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12163

64.

Tang

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

Boulianne

(2024). Who reports witnessing and performing corrections on social media in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and France? Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 5(3), 145. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-145

65.

Tay

L. Q.

Hurlstone

M. J.

Kurz

Ecker

U. K. H.

(2022). A comparison of prebunking and debunking interventions for implied versus explicit misinformation. British Journal of Psychology, 113(3), 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12551

66.

Van der Linden

. (2023). Foolproof: Why misinformation infects our minds and how to build immunity. WW Norton & Company.

67.

van der Meer

T. G. L. A.

Jin

. (2020). Seeking formula for misinformation treatment in public health crises: The effects of corrective information type and source. Health Communication, 35(5), 560–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1573295

68.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2020). Defining misinformation and understanding its bounded nature: Using expertise and evidence for describing misinformation. Political Communication, 37(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1716500

69.

Vraga

E. K.

Bode

(2021). Addressing COVID-19 misinformation on social media preemptively and responsively. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 27(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2702.203139

70.

Walter

Brooks

J. J.

Saucier

C. J.

Suresh

(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

71.

Walter

Cohen

Holbert

R. L.

Morag

(2020). Fact-checking: A meta-analysis of what works and for whom. Political Communication, 37(3), 350–375.

72.

Walter

Murphy

S. T.

(2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564

73.

Wang

Thier

Nan

(2022). Is health misinformation harmful? A systematic review of the psychological and behavioral impact of beliefs in and exposure to health misinformation. OSF.

74.

WHO. (2022, January 19). COVID-19 mythbusters. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters

75.

WHO. (2024a). Creating new tools and channels to amplify health messages. https://www.who.int/teams/digital-health-and-innovation/digital-channels/creating-new-tools-and-channels-to-amplify-health-messages

76.

WHO. (2024b, April 2). WHO unveils a digital health promoter harnessing generative AI for public health. https://www.who.int/news/item/02-04-2024-who-unveils-a-digital-health-promoter-harnessing-generative-ai-for-public-health

77.

WHO. (2025). Using AI to lead a healthier lifestyle. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/campaigns/s-a-r-a-h

78.

X. (2025). Community notes: A collaborative way to add helpful context to posts and keep people better informed. https://communitynotes.x.com/guide/en/about/introduction

79.

Xue

Zhang

Shen

Wojcieszak

(2024). The majority of fact-checking labels in the United States are intense and this decreases engagement intention. Human Communication Research, 50(4), 530–544. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqae007

80.

Zhang

Featherstone

J. D.

Calabrese

Wojcieszak

(2021). Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Preventive Medicine, 145, 106408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106408

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.

0.00 MB

3.26 MB

Automating Accuracy: Scalable Approaches to Correcting Disinformation With Artificial Intelligence on Social Media

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material