Misinformation proliferation on social media platforms is a pervasive threat to the integrity of online public discourse. Genuine users, susceptible to others' influence, often unknowingly engage with, endorse, and re-share questionable pieces of information, collectively amplifying the spread of misinformation. In this study, we introduce an empirical framework to investigate users' susceptibility to influence when exposed to unreliable and reliable information sources. Leveraging two datasets on political and public health discussions on Twitter, we analyze the impact of exposure on the adoption of information sources, examining how the reliability of the source modulates this relationship. Our findings provide evidence that increased exposure augments the likelihood of adoption. Users tend to adopt low-credibility sources with fewer exposures than high-credibility sources, a trend that persists even among non-partisan users. Furthermore, the number of exposures needed for adoption varies based on the source credibility, with extreme ends of the spectrum (very high or low credibility) requiring fewer exposures for adoption. Additionally, we reveal that the adoption of information sources often mirrors users' prior exposure to sources with comparable credibility levels. Our research offers critical insights for mitigating the endorsement of misinformation by vulnerable users, offering a framework to study the dynamics of content exposure and adoption on social media platforms.