Review | Special Issue: From Vulnerability to Vigilance

Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer

Valentin Mang

, Bob M. Fennis

, & Kai Epstude

https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00028
Published: October 4, 2024
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

Mang, V., Fennis, B.M., & Epstude, K. (2024). Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer. advances.in/psychology, 2, e443610. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00028

Mang, Valentin, et al. "Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer." advances.in/psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, 2024, e443610. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00028.

Mang, Valentin, Bob M. Fennis, and Kai Epstude. 2024. "Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer." advances.in/psychology 2 (1): e443610. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00028.

Mang V, Fennis BM, Epstude K. Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer. advances.in/psychology. 2024;2(1):e443610. doi:10.56296/aip00028.

Mang, V. et al. (2024) 'Source credibility effects in misinformation research: A review and primer', advances.in/psychology, 2(1), e443610. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00028.

Download .RIS Download .bib

Understanding the role that perceived source credibility plays in individuals’ responses to misinformation could help in shedding light on the effects of misinformation exposure and aid in making interventions aimed at tackling its negative consequences more effective. Yet, while persuasion research shows that perceived source credibility consistently predicts attitude change upon exposure to persuasive messages, research examining effects of source credibility in misinformation contexts has yielded inconsistent findings. We conducted a systematic review of misinformation research investigating source credibility effects (N studies = 91, N participants = 64,162) and coded various characteristics of individual reported effects (N effects = 162) to provide a narrative synthesis of the literature and identify potential causes of inconsistent findings. Our synthesis suggests that conceptual factors, such as the conceptualisation of source credibility and its constituent dimensions, underexplored moderators, and methodological factors, such as the operationalisation of source credibility and the relevance of stimulus materials, could explain discrepancies in source credibility effects in misinformation contexts. We provide recommendations for how to conceptualise and operationalise source credibility in a more systematic way and recommend promising avenues for future research that could aid the development of much-needed theoretical frameworks of source credibility effects in misinformation contexts.

Ding, Y., Deng, Z., Zhang, W., Lyu, W., Duffy, B. M., & Zhang, D. (2026). Wired to believe: source-authority cues shape perceived AI capability and neural persuasion. Ergonomics, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2026.2734930
Zhang, B. (2026). When narrative correction is delivered by AI: Testing the effects of narrative correction and AI fact-checking on debunking health misinformation. Journal of Health Communication, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2026.2712995
Mattavelli, S. (2026). New insights on the illusory truth effect: societal reach, cognitive foundations, and mitigation strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2026.2694208
Chen, W., & Ou, Y. (2026). Negative emotional contagion and online rumor sharing: The mediating role of perceived rumor credibility. Well-Being Sciences Review, 2(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.54844/wsr.2026.1148
Dobbs, M., Butler, L. H., & Swire-Thompson, B. (2026). The differential consequences of correcting misinformation for high and low credibility sources. Scientific Reports, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42329-x
Butler, L. H., & Swire‐Thompson, B. (2026). Corrections outperform expertise‐based interventions for countering misinformation from alternative medicine sources. Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being, 18(2), e70143. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.70143
Oh, J., Montag, C., Kohne, J., & Schulz, P. J. (2026). Conditional effects of source expertise and pre-existing attitudes on objective knowledge in AI-assisted health information verification. Scientific Reports, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-43698-z
Blaß, J. S. (2026). Data in the context of misinformation: A scoping review. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10776990251410602
Yaros, R. (2026). The smart story suite offers a new approach: Not a single template. Palgrave practical guides in communication., 237–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-03822-7_9
Xu, M., & Petty, R. E. (2025). Using two-sided messages to facilitate misinformation correction for strongly held beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 121, 104807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104807
Mattavelli, S., Brambilla, M. G., & Unkelbach, C. (2025). Repeating statements increases source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 52(9), 2724–2737. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251347420
Szegőfi, Á., Kmetty, Z., & Krekó, P. (2025). From ancient myths to modern fears: Blood libel conspiracy narratives in the hungarian anti-vaccination discourse. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5358135
Kunst, J. R. (2024). Vulnerability to vigilance – Cultivating psychological resilience against misinformation and conspiracy beliefs: Introduction to the special issue. advances in/psychology, 2(1), e1112231. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00033

Download PDF Back to article