ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
How corrective messages persuade in AI era: message sidedness, source attribution, and psychological pathways in health misinformation correction.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In contemporary AI-mediated digital environments, corrective health information is encountered through diverse sources and message formats, raising questions about how message design and source attribution shape belief endorsement. Drawing on persuasion theory, this study examines the effects of corrective message sidedness and source attribution on endorsement of a corrected health claim. Methods: A 2 × 3 factorial experiment was conducted with 543 participants. Corrective message sidedness was manipulated as one-sided or two-sided, while source attribution identified the correction as originating from an LLM chatbot, a government health authority, or an unspecified source. The correction addressed a health claim concerning influenza vaccination during pregnancy. Factorial analysis of variance was used to test the main and interaction effects of message sidedness and source cues. Mediation analyses were conducted to examine the roles of perceived persuasiveness and perceived source credibility. Results: Significant main effects were found for both message sidedness and source cues. Two-sided corrective messages generated higher belief endorsement than one-sided messages, while corrections attributed to a government health authority generated higher belief endorsement than those attributed to an LLM chatbot or an unspecified source. The interaction between message sidedness and source cues was not significant. Mediation analyses further showed that perceived persuasiveness mediated the effect of message sidedness on belief endorsement, whereas perceived source credibility mediated the effect of source attribution. Discussion: Corrective health messages influence belief endorsement not only through the information they provide but also through distinct psychological processes associated with argument evaluation and credibility inference. The findings advance understanding of health misinformation correction in AI-mediated environments and provide practical guidance for designing more effective corrective messages in digital health communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.