Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Meng et al. (Mon,) studied this question.