Hedging, ambiguity, and the rejection of misinformation: evidence from Chinese readers.

Misinformation poses a challenge not only because false claims circulate widely, but also because readers must make judgments about whether such claims are credible and whether they should be shared. While hedging is frequently observed in misinformation, its effects on audience evaluation remain insufficiently differentiated, particularly outside Western linguistic settings. This study examines whether two ambiguity-based hedging cues, source ambiguity and numerical ambiguity, shape readers' responses to Chinese misinformation in distinct ways. A total of 182 participants evaluated a set of Chinese misinformation claims that had previously been debunked by authoritative fact-checking sources. The statements were presented in one of four versions generated through the presence or absence of source ambiguity and numerical ambiguity. Participants' rejection of debunked misinformation claims, sharing intentions, and reaction times were analyzed using mixed-effects models. The results showed that both source ambiguity and numerical ambiguity were associated with greater rejection of debunked misinformation claims. Neither cue directly predicted sharing intention; however, greater rejection of debunked misinformation claims was associated with lower willingness to share it. Numerical ambiguity, but not source ambiguity, was additionally associated with shorter reaction times. These findings suggest that ambiguity-based hedging cues may function as cues of unreliability rather than persuasive devices, highlighting the importance of source traceability and numerical specificity in misinformation literacy interventions.