View in EDS

When AI or Human Matters: Correction Timing as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Source Type and Fact-Checking Effectiveness in Health Misinformation.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: When AI or Human Matters: Correction Timing as a Moderator of the Relationship Between Source Type and Fact-Checking Effectiveness in Health Misinformation.
Authors: Meng, Meichen (AUTHOR), Namkoong, Min (AUTHOR), Park, Hyun Soon (AUTHOR)
Source: International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. Apr2026, Vol. 42 Issue 8, p5739-5761. 23p.
Subjects: Fact checking, Source credibility, Medical misconceptions
Abstract: This study explores the effects of different fact-checking sources (human vs. AI) and correction timings (immediate vs. delayed) on the effectiveness of misinformation correction within the realm of health information. Utilizing a 2 (fact-checking source: human vs. AI) × 2 (correction timing: immediate vs. delayed) × 2 (misinformation topic: physical health vs. mental health) mixed-factorial experiment, the experiments reveal that human fact-checkers significantly surpass AI in enhancing source credibility and corrective impact. Further investigation shows that correction timing moderates the relationship between source credibility and the efficacy of corrections: high-credibility sources more effectively enhance correction outcomes with immediate timing, while the impact diminishes substantially when corrections are delayed. Additionally, the mediating role of source credibility between source type and correction effectiveness is influenced by correction timing. It suggests prioritizing human sources for complex or emotionally charged topics and utilizing AI for scenarios requiring rapid response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
Description
Abstract:This study explores the effects of different fact-checking sources (human vs. AI) and correction timings (immediate vs. delayed) on the effectiveness of misinformation correction within the realm of health information. Utilizing a 2 (fact-checking source: human vs. AI) × 2 (correction timing: immediate vs. delayed) × 2 (misinformation topic: physical health vs. mental health) mixed-factorial experiment, the experiments reveal that human fact-checkers significantly surpass AI in enhancing source credibility and corrective impact. Further investigation shows that correction timing moderates the relationship between source credibility and the efficacy of corrections: high-credibility sources more effectively enhance correction outcomes with immediate timing, while the impact diminishes substantially when corrections are delayed. Additionally, the mediating role of source credibility between source type and correction effectiveness is influenced by correction timing. It suggests prioritizing human sources for complex or emotionally charged topics and utilizing AI for scenarios requiring rapid response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:10447318
DOI:10.1080/10447318.2025.2546045