Source credibility and issue type effects in misinformation correction in two non-western countries

Abstract This paper investigates how individuals respond to corrective interventions based on accuracy nudges and source credibility cues, with a particular focus on how these effects vary across issue types and individual motivations. Using national surveys and experimental data from Turkey and South Korea, we examine how individuals evaluate misinformation related to both scientific and political topics. Across two studies, we show that accuracy prompts and source credibility cues improve responsiveness to corrective information, particularly for scientific misinformation. However, these effects are highly dependent on the level of issue importance perceived by the recipient. Our findings demonstrate that source credibility and issue type shape how individuals respond to corrective information, offering new insight into the cognitive and motivational foundations of accuracy evaluations. We discuss the implications of these findings for corrective mechanisms and belief update in misinformation research across two non-Western contexts.