This study tests how social correction that occurs via one’s social contacts may be effective in reducing misperceptions about the causes of the spread of Zika on two social media platforms: Facebook and Twitter. In the experimental design, the stimulated feeds show different types of social corrections like whether a source is provided or not and the platform on which the misinformation and correction occur. First of all, we found that when misinformation is corrected and a source is provided it reduces misperceptions and that social correction without sources is not effective. Such corrections were also rated as more credible and made the argument more persuasive.
This is consistent across both platforms– social corrections require sources to be effective on both Facebook and Twitter. However, the reason for such success varied: on facebook it lent credibility to the corrective comments but it did not translate into lower misperceptions on the issue. In contrast on twitter individuals who saw social corrections as more credible had lower misperceptions but adding a source to the correction was not the reason for increased credibility. Hence, this study suggests how social media can also serve as a corrective tool to misinformation.