Political misinformation, particularly harmful when it aligns with individuals' preexisting beliefs and political ideologies, has become widespread on social media platforms. In response, platforms like Facebook and X introduced warning messages leveraging fact-checking results from third-party fact-checkers to alert users against false content. However, concerns persist about the effectiveness of these fact-checks, especially when fact-checkers are perceived as politically biased. To address these concerns, this study presents findings from an online human-subject experiment (N=216) investigating how the political stances of fact-checkers influence their effectiveness in correcting misbeliefs about political misinformation. Our findings demonstrate that partisan fact-checkers can decrease the perceived accuracy of political misinformation and correct misbeliefs without triggering backfire effects. This correction is even more pronounced when the misinformation aligns with individuals' political ideologies. Notably, while previous research suggests that fact-checking warnings are less effective for conservatives than liberals, our results suggest that explicitly labeled partisan fact-checkers, positioned as political counterparts to conservatives, are particularly effective in reducing conservatives' misbeliefs toward pro-liberal misinformation.

To mitigate misinformation on social media, platforms such as Facebook have offered warnings to users based on the detection results of AI systems. With the evolution of AI detection systems, efforts have been devoted to applying explainable AI (XAI) to further increase the transparency of AI decision-making. Nevertheless, few factors have been considered to understand the effectiveness of a warning with AI explanations in helping humans detect misinformation. In this study, we report the results of three online human-subject experiments (N = 2,692) investigating the framing effect and the impact of an AI system’s reliability on the effectiveness of AI warning with explanations. Our findings show that the framing effect is effective for participants’ misinformation detection, whereas the AI system’s reliability is critical for humans’ misinformation detection and participants’ trust in the AI system. However, adding the explanations can potentially increase participants’ suspicions on miss errors (i.e., false negatives) in the AI system. Furthermore, more trust is shown in the AI warning without explanations condition. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

Associative inference is an adaptive, constructive process of memory that allows people to link related information to make novel connections. We conducted three online human-subjects experiments investigating participants’ susceptibility to associatively inferred misinformation and its interaction with their cognitive ability and how news articles were presented. In each experiment, participants completed recognition and perceived accuracy rating tasks for the snippets of news articles in a tweet format across two phases. At Phase 1, participants viewed real news only. At Phase 2, participants viewed both real and fake news. Critically, we varied whether the fake news at Phase 2 was inferred from (i.e., associative inference), associated with (i.e., association only), or irrelevant to (i.e., control) the corresponding real news pairs at Phase 1. Both recognition and perceived accuracy results showed that participants in the associative inference condition were more susceptible to fake news than those in the other conditions. Furthermore, hashtags embedded within the tweets made the obtained effects evident only for the participants of higher cognitive ability. Our findings reveal that associative inference can be a basis for individuals’ susceptibility to misinformation, especially for those of higher cognitive ability. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for understanding and mitigating misinformation on social media platforms.