Differential effects of pressure on social contagion of memory.

Abstract

Collaboration can support performance on a variety of tasks, but recent projects have indicated that group collaborations can also be associated with memory decrements. For example, when people discuss ideas, any shared inaccurate information can be used by group members to complete subsequent tasks. Across two experiments, we examined whether this social contagion is influenced by performance pressures that regularly emerge during group interactions. In Experiment 1, participants under individual-directed pressure, goal-directed pressure, or control conditions studied word lists before completing a collaborative recall with a confederate partner who occasionally recalled incorrect words. We examined whether partnerproduced inaccuracies contaminated participants' memories for the list contents on a subsequent individual recall. Goal-directed pressure, focused on monitoring partner accuracy, facilitated subsequent individual recall, as demonstrated by reduced reproductions of partner-generated inaccuracies. In contrast, individualdirected pressure, focused on appearing competent, resulted in greater use of those inaccuracies. Experiment 2 ruled out that the benefits associated with goal-directed pressure were solely due to warning participants about the possibility of social contagion. These results demonstrate that different instantiations of pressure can help or hinder memory-related performance in collaborative settings. Under the right conditions, pressure can help overcome the effects of exposure to inaccurate information. Public Significance StatementThis study provides evidence that different kinds of performance pressure can help or hinder memoryrelated activities in collaborative settings. Under certain conditions, pressure can help people resist being influenced by inaccurate information shared by others. Pressure that motivates monitoring the accuracy of others' contributions can usefully reduce reproductions of partner-generated inaccuracies. In contrast, pressure that motivates individuals to appear competent, unfortunately, can result in a greater use of partner-generated inaccuracies.

Misinformed and unaware? Metacognition and the influence of inaccurate information.

“…Furthermore, the benefits of metacognitive reflection that were obtained in Experiments 2 and 3 suggest a potential explanation for why previous attempts to reduce reliance on inaccuracies have often been ineffective (Donovan et al, 2018; Eslick et al, 2011; Fazio et al, 2013; Jalbert, Newman, & Schwarz, 2019; Marsh & Fazio, 2006; Rapp, 2008). These interventions may have failed to sufficiently motivate readers to engage in strategic, effortful evaluations of content (Andrews et al, 2020; Richter, 2015). People may not only need to acknowledge the potential for inaccuracies and possess the knowledge to detect them, but also realize that it is useful and necessary to monitor and evaluate information.…”

“…Successful editing reduces the likelihood of encoding false content, and/or affords tagging any encoded falsehoods in memory as problematic, both of which would reduce the influence of those inaccuracies on subsequent decisions. Explicit instructions to engage in evaluation have also been successful in reducing people’s susceptibility to inaccuracies (Andrews, Salovich, & Rapp, 2020; Brashier et al, 2020; Hyman, Roundhill, Werner, & Rabiroff, 2014; Wiswede et al, 2012). The accumulating evidence suggests that evaluation, instantiated through instructions or predispositions, can be usefully leveraged to reduce the problematic effects of exposure to inaccurate information.…”

“…For example, explicit warnings that a text contains inaccuracies, which could encourage careful evaluation, have often proven ineffective at reducing people’s reliance on falsehoods (Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Tang, 2010; Marsh & Fazio, 2006). Warnings on their own are not always enough to encourage evaluation, at times needing to be paired with additional motivational instructions to obtain benefits (Andrews et al, 2020; Donovan & Rapp, 2020; Marsh & Fazio, 2006; Sparks & Rapp, 2011). More substantial prompting to contemplate accuracy, for example, can help reduce people’s sharing of inaccurate information online (Fazio, 2020; Pennycook, Epstein, et al, 2020).…”

How susceptible are you? Using feedback and monitoring to reduce the influence of false information.

“…That said, negative feedback produced more robust benefits than did positive feedback, impacting responses to both hard and easy items. Negative feedback may have induced greater goal-directed pressure to improve performance (Andrews-Todd et al, 2021) and/or more directly addressed any overconfidence. We did not include manipulation checks, making it difficult to ascertain whether the benefits observed for both feedback conditions emerged because feedback valence was unimportant or because people did not actually believe or remember the feedback prescriptions.…”

Finding Strategies Against Misinformation in Social Media: A Qualitative Study

“…Lab and questionnaire studies have shown that supporting and encouraging the use of the metacognitive processes involved in processing information can enable social media users to detect misinformation more easily and to react appropriately to them [34]. In general, encouraging people to engage in the evaluation of information is a successful approach to reduce susceptibility to inaccuracies [5,8]. However, people are often not motivated to engage in information evaluation, even when it seems obvious and reasonable [25,33].…”