Meta-Analysis Based on Source Credibility Theory: Effectiveness of Information Sources to Combat Misinformation

Social media has become a primary source of health information for ordinary people, but it also enables the swift spread of misinformation. Corrective strategies focus on prebunking and debunking, while the format of these messages can influence their effectiveness. However, research on the overall efficacy of different information sources in combating health misinformation on social media is limited. This study conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective messages from various sources and examined potential moderators. Analyzing 109 effect sizes (k = 13, N = 8134), the results showed a significant average effect of organizational corrections when comparing with pure control on beliefs about misinformation (d = -0.33, CI [-0.45, -0.20], k = 5). The effect of organizational and social corrections on beliefs about facts was also significant and strong (d = 0.85, CI [0.68, 1.02], k = 5). Additionally, there was a significant moderate effect on negative emotions towards corrective messages when comparing organizational and social corrections (d = 0.31, CI [0.10, 0.52], k = 6). This meta-analysis expands the scope of source credibility theory to include attitudes and intentions, suggesting new perspectives to use information sources to combat misinformation and enhance the acceptance of corrective messages.