Correcting Misinformation—A Challenge for Education and Cognitive Science

Ecker, Ullrich K. H.; Swire, Briony; Lewandowsky, Stephan

doi:10.7551/mitpress/9737.003.0005

Cited by 23 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(118 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of the present study could also be considered with respect to a dual-process framework that emphasizes the contributions of automatic activation and strategic monitoring (Ecker, Swire, & Lewandowsky, 2014; Evans & Stanovich, 2013; Pennycook & Rand, 2019). According to this account, story-relevant information, including the initial and alternative causes, becomes automatically activated when readers encounter questions about the news report.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

Rich¹,

Donovan²,

Rapp³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large body of research has focused on whether and how readers update their knowledge of events when an initial piece of causal information is corrected. These studies have indicated that corrections can reduce, but do not eliminate, readers' reliance on the initial cause when drawing inferences or making decisions about the events (i.e., the continued influence effect). Additional studies suggest that supplementing a correction with an alternative cause can further reduce reliance on discredited initial causes. In three experiments, we interrogated the importance of cause typicality for the generalizable utility of these correction strategies by manipulating the typicality of initial and alternative causes. We found evidence that participants showed greater reliance on a typical than an atypical initial cause both before and after correction, but no consistent evidence that this typicality impacted the effectiveness of the correction. Furthermore, the typicality of the alternative causes used to supplement a correction did not seem to matter with respect to updating. These results highlight the importance that characteristics of an initial cause can have for event encodings and corrections, identifying critical boundary conditions for understanding the effects of corrections on knowledge revision and the continued influence effect. Public Significance StatementNews reports often provide detailed information that changes as information is gathered. This study demonstrates that people more strongly rely on event causes that are typical of their expectations as compared to atypical. However, this increased reliance may not interfere with people updating their event understandings after the causes are refuted. In addition, refutations that included atypical or typical alternative causes were similarly effective. These findings highlight the utility of corrections for informing people's understandings of events.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

Rich¹,

Donovan²,

Rapp³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Second, Rich and Zaragoza (2020) speculated that this effect might reflect failures of strategic monitoring at retrieval, as stated in dual-process account of CIE (Ecker et al, 2014b) when assessing misinformation reliance in the pre-test shortly after the correction, the correction is highly available and it is easier for participants to find inconsistencies between the misinformation and the correction because of their salience; however, when assessing misinformation reliance in the post-test several days after the correction, the correction is most distant in time and less available, in consequence leading participants to falling back to misinformation, as they did not involve themselves in the effortful processes of retrieval and monitoring necessary to assess the accuracy of the misinformation.…”

Section: Running Head: Continued Influence Effect and Reliance Regres...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do the protective effects last? The effectiveness of alternative + forewarning/inoculation technique in reducing misinformation reliance and reliance regression in the continued influence effect procedure

Buczel,

Siwiak,

Kękuś

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continued influence effect (CIE) refers to the maintaining reliance on misinformation, even after it has been retracted. There are several techniques to counter it, such as presenting alternatives to misinformation or forewarnings, but in existing research nor they have generally been shown to eliminate CIE, nor their protective effects appear to be durable over time. The present study (N = 154) aimed to investigate the effectiveness of an alternative and a combination of an alternative and forewarning in both reducing CIE and their resistance to belief regression – returning towards pre-correction levels of misinformation reliance. We found that both alternative reduced CIE and forewarning boosted this effect in the pre-test. Nevertheless, the protective effect of the alternative+warning technique was not sustained, as shown by the fact that misinformation reliance increased for over 7 days, despite continued memory of the correction. However, this technique still had some benefits as misinformation reliance in the post-test did not rise to the level of the retraction-only condition. In the Discussion, we addressed issues such as potential mechanisms of that effect and possible reasons for differences between our results and other research. Despite all similarities, given the difference in both methodology and results, we proposed that increased misinformation reliance over time in inferential reasoning should be attributed to a phenomenon we refer to as reliance regression rather than to belief regression.

show abstract

Misinformation and How to Correct It

Cook

Ecker²,

Lewandowsky³

2015

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing prevalence of misinformation in society may adversely affect democratic decision making, which depends on a well-informed public. False information can originate from a number of sources including rumors, literary fiction, mainstream media, corporate-vested interests, governments, and nongovernmental organizations. The rise of the Internet and user-driven content has provided a venue for quick and broad dissemination of information, not all of which is accurate. Consequently, a large body of research spanning a number of disciplines has sought to understand misinformation and determine which interventions are most effective in reducing its influence. This essay summarizes research into misinformation, bringing together studies from psychology, political science, education, and computer science. Cognitive psychology investigates why individuals struggle with correcting misinformation and inaccurate beliefs, and why myths are so difficult to dislodge. Two important findings involve (i) various "backfire effects," which arise when refutations ironically reinforce misconceptions, and (ii) the role of worldviews in accentuating the persistence of misinformation. Computer scientists simulate the spread of misinformation through social networks and develop algorithms to automatically detect or neutralize myths. We draw together various research threads to provide guidelines on how to effectively refute misconceptions without risking backfire effects.

show abstract

Correcting Misinformation—A Challenge for Education and Cognitive Science

Cited by 23 publications

References 87 publications

Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

Do the protective effects last? The effectiveness of alternative + forewarning/inoculation technique in reducing misinformation reliance and reliance regression in the continued influence effect procedure

Misinformation and How to Correct It

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About