Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing

Abstract

Word count abstract: 168Word count manuscript (excluding references, tables, and figure captions): 5350 1: AbstractIt is well known that information that is initially thought to be correct but then revealed to be false, often continues to influence human judgement and decision making despite people being aware of the retraction. Yet little research has examined the underlying neural substrates of this phenomenon, which is known as the 'continued influence effect of misinformation' (CIEM). It remains unclear how the human brain processes critical information that retracts prior claims. To address this question in further detail, 26 healthy adults underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while listening to brief narratives which either involved a retraction of prior information or not. Following each narrative, subjects' comprehension of the narrative, including their inclination to rely on retracted information, was probed. As expected, it was found that retracted information continued to affect participants' narrative-related reasoning. In addition, the fMRI data indicated that the continued influence of retracted information may be due to a breakdown of narrative-level integration and coherence-building mechanisms implemented by the precuneus and posterior cingulate gyrus.Keywords: continued influence effect; misinformation; memory updating MISINFORMATION PROCESSING 3 2: IntroductionThe persistence of erroneous beliefs appears ubiquitous in modern societies (Lewandowsky et al., 2012). One need look no further than the purported link between a common childhood vaccine and autism which has no scientific basis but is widely accepted by the public (Horne et al., 2015), or the persistent belief in the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before the invasion of 2003 even though none were ever found (Jacobson, 2010;Kull et al., 2003). Much misinformation now spreads online, and accordingly, the World Economic Forum recently listed digital misinformation as one of the main challenges to societies globally (WEF, 2013).Decades of behavioral research indicate that discredited information can continue to influence people's beliefs and reasoning even after that information has been retracted-a phenomenon known as the continued influence effect of misinformation (CIEM) Ecker et al., 2010;Johnson & Seifert, 1994;Wilkes & Leatherbarrow, 1988; for reviews see Lewandowsky et al., 2012;Schwarz et al., 2016). The CIEM can occur even when people (a) remember the retraction (Johnson & Seifert, 1994;Marsh et al., 2003), and/or (b) receive prior warning about their exposure to false information (Ecker et al., 2010).Attempts to retract misinformation in real world settings therefore often struggle to prove effective (Miton & Mercier, 2015;Nyhan & Reifler, 2015).Difficulties in creating effective interventions against misinformation may also partially reflect the fact that the cognitive mechanisms underlying the CIEM remain elusive. To date, two main explanations have been discussed in the literature.Acc...

Keeping track of ‘alternative facts’: The neural correlates of processing misinformation corrections

“…Unexpectedly, contrary to prior reports in the literature (e.g., Gordon et al, 2017), neither of our two studies found systematic neural processing differences during the encoding of correcting information in support of the model-updating account of the CIEM. Yet these null findings should be tentatively received.…”

“…Unfortunately, traditional psychological measures struggle to disentangle these two stages of information processing as the CIEM's only behavioural indicator is people's level of reliance on misinformationa measure that inherently conflates the impact of encoding-and retrievalrelated processes. As a consequence, in their search for alternative means of inquiry, CIEM scientists have recently turned their attention towards neuroimaging techniques (e.g., Edelson et al, 2014;Gordon et al, 2017;Kaplan et al, 2016). Such techniques promise to be particularly relevant to the field given that they can monitor brain activity during different stages of information processing.…”

Working memory capacity predicts ongoing reliance on misinformation: A latent-variable analysis

“…Our finding that WM capacity uniquely predicted susceptibility to the CIE suggests that the CIE may arise, at least partly, from a failure of integration, manipulation, and updating processes in WM, when the retraction is processed (Ecker et al, 2017;Gordon et al, 2017;Kendeou et al, 2014). Limited WM capacity will limit a person's ability to concurrently activate and integrate conflicting pieces of information, and then update and revise the corresponding event model accordingly.…”

“…In other words, to the extent that processing of the retraction does not result in immediate, adequate updating and revision of the initial, incorrect event model, later reasoning may rely unduly on corrected misinformation. A recent neuroimaging study lends some support to this notion, as the CIE was associated with failure of integration and coherence-building mechanisms mediated by the medial parietal and dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex (Gordon, Brooks, Quadflieg, Ecker, & Lewandowsky, 2017).…”

How Stories in Memory Perpetuate the Continued Influence of False Information

“…Maintaining coherence thus requires effortful integration of new explanatory information into a revised mental model. Continued influence of the original information can occur if this integrative revision fails (Gordon, Brooks, Quadflieg, Ecker, & Lewandowsky, ; Kendeou, Walsh, Smith, & O'Brien, ). Integration is facilitated if readers are supplied with an alternative causal explanation that can serve to replace the misinformation in the mental model.…”