Abstract
Utilizing the source credibility framework and MAIN model, this study examined how non-content credibility indicators affected individuals’ beliefs and behavioral intentions about COVID-19 on Twitter. Using quota sampling, 310 participants participated in a 3 (misinformation source: politician vs. journalist vs. ordinary user) X 2 (fact-checking source: Twitter vs. scientist) between-subjects factorial experiment. Misinformation from journalists enhanced participants’ belief in misinformation the most. Meanwhile, misinformation from politicians enhanced participants’ intention to share misinformation the most. Notably, scientists enhanced participants’ beliefs and intentions to share fact-checking responses more than Twitter misinformation warning labels. Theoretical contributions, practical implications, and future research are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Publication status | Published - 27 May 2021 |
| Event | 71st Annual International Communication Association Conference, ICA 2021 - Virtual Duration: 27 May 2021 → 31 May 2021 https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.icahdq.org/resource/resmgr/conference/2021/2021-printprogram.pdf (Conference program) |
Conference
| Conference | 71st Annual International Communication Association Conference, ICA 2021 |
|---|---|
| Period | 27/05/21 → 31/05/21 |
| Other | Engaging the Essential Work of Care: Communication, Connectedness, and Social Justice |
| Internet address |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Twitter Misinformation Labels vs. Scientist’s Fact-Checking Responses? Evaluating the Strategies Debunking Misinformation About COVID-19 on Twitter'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver