Abstract
ABSTRACT Upon a surge of misinformation surrounding COVID-19, fact-checking has received much attention as a tool to fight the rampant misinformation. However, such correction efforts have faced challenges from partisans’ biased information processing. For example, partisans trust or distrust a fact-checking message based on whether the message benefits or harms their supporting party. To minimize such politically biased processing of corrective health information, this experimental study examined how different source labels of fact-checkers (human experts vs. AI vs. user consensus) affect partisans’ perceived credibility of fact-checking messages about COVID-19. Our findings showed that AI and user consensus (vs. human experts) source labels on fact-checking messages significantly reduced partisan-based motivated reasoning in evaluating fact-checking message credibility.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
