aceWho Do We Trust to Correct Health Misinformation? Credibility of AI-Generated Fact-Checking Messages
As artificial intelligence (AI)-generated messages are increasingly used to correct health misinformation, it remains unclear when such messages are perceived as credible and how credibility shapes subsequent information behaviors. This study examines how source labeling (AI vs. human scientists) influences the perceived credibility of health-related fact-checking messages and whether these effects depend on perceived AI objectivity and trust in science. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with U.S. adults…
Fact-checking messages labeled as AI-generated prompted greater intentions to seek additional information than human-scientist-labeled ones, regardless of perceived credibility.
The study is a single experiment with 231 U.S. adults and measures intentions and perceptions, so the findings may not generalize to other populations or real behavior.
Evidence
- Peer-reviewedHealth Communication2026-10-20
How should this claim be treated?
Truvace Impact Record TRV-2026-2112, v1: “Who Do We Trust to Correct Health Misinformation? Credibility of AI-Generated Fact-Checking Messages.” Truvace, 2026-10-21. /record/TRV-2026-2112 (accessed at citation time). sha256 8731a9d7ac5c44c0…
Calibration history
Every change to this record since certification, in the open. None yet — the reading has held since it entered the record.
Certified into the record
How to verify without trusting this page
Fetch the canonical text of any version from /api/record/TRV-2026-2112 and hash it yourself — for example shasum -a 256 on the saved canonical field. The result must equal content_hash, and each version’s text ends with prev:followed by the prior version’s hash (version 1 chains to 64 zeros). If a single character of any version had been altered since certification, the chain would not reproduce.