The rapid proliferation of fake news poses a significant challenge to information ecosystems, particularly in digital and social media environments. This study investigates the effectiveness of chatbot interventions in assisting users with fake news detection within human-computer communities. Grounded in the Heuristic-Systematic Model, the study employs a 6 (fake news type) × 3 (chatbot intervention strategy) mixed design to examine how different chatbot strategies - fact-checking, contextual explanations, and authority endorsements - affect users’ ability to identify various types of fake news. The results show that fact-checking is most effective for detecting fabrication and photo manipulation, contextual explanations enhance recognition of satire and parody-based fake news, and authority endorsements are particularly useful in countering propaganda. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring chatbot interventions to specific fake news types.
AbonizioHQBarbonAPADRodriguesR, et al. (2023) How people interact with a chatbot against disinformation and fake news in COVID-19 in Brazil: the CoronaAI case. International Journal of Medical Informatics177: 105134.
2.
AmazeenMA (2024) The misinformation recognition and response model: an emerging theoretical framework for investigating antecedents to and consequences of misinformation recognition. Human Communication Research50(2): 218–229.
3.
BadjiSDOrgeretKSMutsvairoB (2024) An exploratory study of fact-checking practices in conflict and authoritarian contexts. Media and Communication12: 8698.
4.
BagoBRandDGPennycookG (2020) Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General149(8): 1608–1613.
5.
BakirVMcStayA (2018) FAKE NEWS AND THE ECONOMY OF EMOTIONS problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism6(2): 154–175.
6.
BartschANeubergerCStarkB, et al. (2024) Epistemic authority in the digital public sphere. An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda. Communication Theory35(1): 37–50.
7.
BoudanaSSegevE (2024) Fake news makes the news: definitions and framing of fake news in mainstream media. Journalism Practice1–20.
8.
BraunJAEklundJL (2019) Fake news, real money: ad tech platforms, profit-driven hoaxes, and the business of journalism. Digital Journalism7(1): 1–21.
9.
BrugmanBCBurgersCBeukeboomCJ, et al. (2022) Satirical news from left to right: discursive integration in written online satire. Journalism23(8): 1626–1644.
10.
BurgersCBrugmanBC (2022) How satirical news impacts affective responses, learning, and persuasion: a three-level random-effects meta-analysis. Communication Research49(7): 966–993.
11.
ChadwickAKaiserJVaccariC, et al. (2021) Online social endorsement and Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy in the United Kingdom. Social Media + Society7(2): 20563051211008817.
12.
ChaeJHTewksburyD (2024) Perceiving AI Intervention Does Not Compromise the Persuasive Effect of fact-checking. New Media & Society.
CohenMSMcintyreK (2025) Journalists’ Perceptions About Public Trust in East African Media: Comparative, Cross-Country Surveys from Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. International Journal of Press-Politics.
15.
DierickxLLindénCGOpdahlAL (2023) Automated fact-checking to support professional practices: systematic literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Communication17: 5170–5190.
16.
DouradoT (2023) Who posts fake news? Authentic and inauthentic spreaders of fabricated news on Facebook and Twitter. Journalism Practice17(10): 2103–2122.
17.
EaglyAHChaikenS (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
18.
GordonLTShapiroAM (2012) Priming correct information reduces the misinformation effect. Memory & Cognition40(5): 717–726.
19.
GuggenheimLKwakNCampbellSW (2011) Nontraditional news negativity: the relationship of entertaining political news use to political cynicism and mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research23(3): 287–314.
20.
GuoYFLeiYZ (2025) The media trust gap and its political explanations: how individual and sociopolitical factors differentiate news trust preferencesAsian Societies. International Journal of Press-Politics.
HirvonenNTirroniemiAKortelainenT (2019) The cognitive authority of user-generated health information in an online forum for girls and young women. Journal of Documentation75(1): 78–98.
23.
JonesMO (2019) Propaganda, fake news, and fake trends: the weaponization of Twitter bots in the gulf crisis. International Journal of Communication13: 1389–1415.
24.
KaoHCTuYJHuangYH, et al. (2024) A majority-based learning system for detecting misinformation. Behaviour & Information Technology1–15.
25.
KimKJSundarSS (2016) Mobile persuasion: can screen size and presentation mode make a difference to trust?Human Communication Research42(1): 45–70.
26.
KimSChooSParkD, et al. (2023) Designing an XAI interface for BCI experts: a contextual design for pragmatic explanation interface based on domain knowledge in a specific context. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies174: 103009.
27.
KohYJSundarSS (2010) Heuristic versus systematic processing of specialist versus generalist sources in online media. Human Communication Research36(2): 103–124.
28.
LiZZhangWYZhangHT, et al. (2025) Global digital compact: a mechanism for the governance of online discriminatory and misleading content generation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction41(2): 1381–1396.
29.
LimS (2013) College students’ credibility judgments and heuristics concerning wikipedia. Information Processing & Management49(2): 405–419.
30.
LuYDShenCH (2023) Unpacking multimodal fact-checking: features and engagement of fact-checking videos on Chinese TikTok (douyin). Social Media + Society9(1): 20563051221150406.
31.
McDevittMParksPStalkerJ, et al. (2018) Anti-intellectualism among US students in journalism and mass communication: a cultural perspective. Journalism19(6): 782–799.
32.
MessnerCVosgerauJ (2010) Cognitive inertia and the implicit association test. Journal of Marketing Research47(2): 374–386.
33.
PalmerREdgerlyS (2024) “Because the News is Depressing as Hell”: journalists’ explanations of news avoidance. Digital Journalism1–19.
34.
ParkCS (2024) Why people rely on fact-checkers? Testing theses of “Perceived Severity of Fake News” and “Disappointment in news media”. Journalism Studies25(1): 1–18.
35.
PeiferJT (2018) Imitation as flattery: how TV news parody’s media criticism can influence perceived news media importance and media trust. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly95(3): 734–756.
SaeidniaHRHosseiniELundB, et al. (2025) Artificial intelligence in the battle against disinformation and misinformation: a systematic review of challenges and approaches. Knowledge and Information Systems67: 3139–3158.
38.
ShenCHKasraMPanWJ, et al. (2019) Fake images: the effects of source, intermediary, and digital media literacy on contextual assessment of image credibility online. New Media & Society21(2): 438–463.
39.
ShiSGongYHGursoyD (2021) Antecedents of trust and adoption intention toward artificially intelligent recommendation systems in travel planning: a heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Travel Research60(8): 1714–1734.
40.
ShinDKoerberALimJS (2024) Impact of misinformation from generative AI on user information processing: how people understand misinformation from generative AI. New Media & Society27: 4017–4047.
41.
SoJYLiuJY (2023) The role of audience favorability in processing (un)familiar messages: a heuristic-systematic model perspective. Human Communication Research49(4): 383–395.
42.
SpearingNMConnellyLB (2011) Is compensation “bad for health”? A systematic meta-review. Injury42(1): 15–24.
43.
SunYQXieJ (2024) Do heuristic cues affect misinformation sharing? Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly10776990241284597.
44.
SundarSSMolinaMDChoE (2021) Seeing is believing: is video modality more powerful in spreading fake news via online messaging apps?Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26(6): 301–319.
45.
TandocECLimZWLingR (2017) Defining “Fake News”. Digital Journalism6(2): 137–153.
WheatleyDRossKCarterC, et al. (2024) Gender in/and the news in the UK and Republic of Ireland: slow but (un)steady progress?Journalism26: 2047–2066.
48.
WinterSMetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2016) Selective use of news cues: a multiple-motive perspective on information selection in social media environments. Journal of Communication66(4): 669–693.
49.
XieZH (2025) Who is spreading AI-Generated health rumors? A study on the association between AIGC interaction types and the willingness to share health rumors. Social Media + Society11(1): 20563051251323391.
50.
XieZHLiSSLiW (2025) Do discussions in human-computer communities trigger group polarization? Insights from the media evocation paradigm. Computers in Human Behavior165: 108561.
51.
XuKBHeYY (2024) Manufacturing digitalized soft propaganda: practices of the Chinese party newspapers in the past decade. Journalism Practice18(4): 974–990.
52.
ZhangJWFeatherstoneJDCalabreseC, et al. (2021) Effects of fact-checking social media vaccine misinformation on attitudes toward vaccines. Preventive Medicine145: 106408.
53.
ZhengLZHuangBRQiuHF, et al. (2024) The role of social media followers’ agency in influencer marketing: a study based on the heuristic-systematic model of information processing. International Journal of Advertising43(3): 554–579.
