Corporate marketing teams sometimes promote misleading, unverified, or utterly false claims. For example, Goop has faced considerable criticism for marketing numerous products (e.g., vaginal steaming, coffee enemas, jade eggs) that do not yield their advertised medical benefits. New Balance falsely claimed that their technologically advanced sneakers strategically activate the glutes, quads, hamstrings, and calves, enabling their wearers to tone and burn extra calories. Advertisements for the herbal supplement, Airborne, claimed that it helps to ward off harmful bacteria and germs, preventing the flu and common cold; such benefits were, however, unestablished. Misleading and false advertisements such as these are not a new phenomenon; famous examples include Stanley's Snake Oil and Listerine's claims in the 1970s that their mouthwash cured colds. But recent developments in digital media (and social media, in particular) mean that such falsehoods spread more rapidly and more widely than ever before. A single tweet can, for example, reach millions of people in an instant. In this context, it has become increasingly important to understand how consumers make judgments about the veracity of information, and how they update their beliefs in the face of retractions or other feedback.What processes drive consumers' judgments about the veracity of information, and what processes play a role in belief revision (i.e., the correction of false beliefs)? Oftentimes, advertisers appeal to people's emotions, insecurities, and motivations. This "hot cognition" occurs within a system tuned to learn and update beliefs about the world. People's belief in falsehoods (and their ability to update their beliefs) depends on the same processes that give rise to accurate beliefs, not upon unique, special processes or strategies specific to any particular domain of research (Isberner &
