This study tests whether the number (1 vs. 2) and the source (another user vs. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of corrective responses are effective in reducing misperceptions. We also consider whether correcting information influences people’s perception of the credibility of the source be it CDC or other users who comment on Twitter. Using Zika virus as a study, we found that user-only correction had no significant effect whereas CDC-only correction significantly reduced the misperceptions. For the number, it was found that adding a second correction from the CDC after a user has corrected the misinformation reduces the misperceptions as compared to user-only condition and even more than if the user adds correction after CDC has corrected the misinformation. Doing so neither harmed nor increased the credibility of CDC or the trustworthiness of the user. While a single user correction was less impactful than a reputable organization like CDC it was better than no correction at all. However a user adding a second correction after the CDC can produce backfire effects– perhaps the participants become skeptical seeing repeated corrections with the same evidence. In conclusion, both users and organizations should speak up when they see misinformation on social media as correction makes a positive difference without a cost to credibility.
