To examine how different features of corrective messages moderate individuals' attitudes toward misinformation on social media, a 2 (misinformation source credibility: high vs low) × 2 (corrective message source: algorithmic vs peer correction) × 2 (correction type: factual elaboration vs simple rebuttal) between-subjects experiment was conducted. To reduce perceived credibility and respondents' attitudes toward the misinformation, peer corrections were more effective than algorithmic corrections for misinformation from a source with lower credibility; for misinformation from a highly credible source, the superiority effect of peer corrections was still significant on perceived credibility but not on respondents' attitudes toward the misinformation. For the fact-checking tendency, we did not find a robust effect about how different features of corrective messages interacted. Our findings provide important insights into message design in combatting misinformation on social media.
Keywords: correction type; corrective message; health communication; misinformation; source credibility.