Corrections are not always effective at reducing belief in misinformation. Negated corrections, which state a piece of information is not true, may only be effective at inhibiting information an observer has already encountered. We compared the effectiveness of negated corrections and replacements while manipulating initial exposure to a target concept. Subjects read one (Experiment 1) or six (Experiment 2) passages presenting a target concept (e.g., blue car) or not, followed by a negated correction (e.g., not blue), replacement (e.g., red), or no correction, then answered open-ended questions which were scored for mentions of the target concept. When subjects were exposed to the target concept, negated corrections reduced mentions of the misinformation relative to no correction; however, when not exposed to the concept, negated corrections increased mentions relative to no correction. These results demonstrate that negated corrections can increase belief in misinformation when observers have not been exposed to the misinformation.
Research suggests that the presence of a non-referent from the same category as the referent interferes with anaphor resolution. In five experiments, the hypothesis that multiple non-referents would produce a cumulative interference effect (i.e., a fan effect) was examined. This hypothesis was supported in Experiments 1A and 1B, with subjects being less accurate and slower to recognize referents (1A) and non-referents (1B) as the number of potential referents increased from two to five. Surprisingly, the number of potential referents led to a decrease in anaphor reading times. The results of Experiments 2A and 2B replicated the probe-recognition results in a completely within-subjects design and ruled out the possibility that a speeded-reading strategy led to the fan-effect findings. The results of Experiment 3 provided evidence that subjects were resolving the anaphors. These results suggest that multiple non-referents do produce a cumulative interference effect; however, additional research is necessary to explore the effect on anaphor reading times.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.