Memory failure predicts belief regression after the correction of misinformation

Swire‐Thompson, Briony; Dobbs, Mitch; Thomas, Ayanna K.; DeGutis, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105276

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that participants discerned recalled real and fake details quite well, especially when they remembered that topics were corrected. These associations between memory for corrections and beliefs are compatible with other studies offering memory explanations for belief change (Kemp et al, 2022a ; Swire-Thompson et al, 2023 ; Wahlheim et al, 2020 ) and accounts attributing the continued influence effect to selective retrieval of misinformation (for reviews, see Ecker et al, 2022 ; Sanderson & Ecker, 2020 ). One version of this account invokes a dual-process perspective (Jacoby, 1991 , 1999 ) by assuming that reliance on misinformation persists when its familiarity is unopposed by recollection-based retrieval (Butterfuss & Kendeou, 2020 ; Ecker et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Perceived Accuracy Of Real and Fake Newssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Although extensive work has examined the effects of misinformation exposure and corrections on belief updating (for a review, see Ecker et al, 2022 ), only a few studies have examined the role of memory in belief updating (Collier et al, 2023 ; Kemp, et al, 2022a ; Swire-Thompson et al, 2023 ; Wahlheim et al, 2020 ). Typical belief updating paradigms collect belief ratings for misinformation statements, correct the misinformation, and then collect belief ratings again for the earlier statements (e.g., Swire et al, 2017 ; Swire-Thompson et al, 2023 ). Our approach differed by measuring perceived accuracy during initial fake news exposure and when participants tried to recall real news details after a correction phase.…”

Section: Perceived Accuracy Of Real and Fake Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news

Kemp,

Sinclair,

Adcock

et al. 2024

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fake news can have enduring effects on memory and beliefs. An ongoing theoretical debate has investigated whether corrections (fact-checks) should include reminders of fake news. The familiarity backfire account proposes that reminders hinder correction (increasing interference), whereas integration-based accounts argue that reminders facilitate correction (promoting memory integration). In three experiments, we examined how different types of corrections influenced memory for and belief in news headlines. In the exposure phase, participants viewed real and fake news headlines. In the correction phase, participants viewed reminders of fake news that either reiterated the false details (complete) or prompted recall of missing false details (partial); reminders were followed by fact-checked headlines correcting the false details. Both reminder types led to proactive interference in memory for corrected details, but complete reminders produced less interference than partial reminders (Experiment 1). However, when participants had fewer initial exposures to fake news and experienced a delay between exposure and correction, this effect was reversed; partial reminders led to proactive facilitation, enhancing correction (Experiment 2). This effect occurred regardless of the delay before correction (Experiment 3), suggesting that the effects of partial reminders depend on the number of prior fake news exposures. In all experiments, memory and perceived accuracy were better when fake news and corrections were recollected, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding. Overall, we show that when memories of fake news are weak or less accessible, partial reminders are more effective for correction; when memories of fake news are stronger or more accessible, complete reminders are preferable.

show abstract

Section: Perceived Accuracy Of Real and Fake Newssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Perceived Accuracy Of Real and Fake Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news

Kemp,

Sinclair,

Adcock

et al. 2024

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, the sin of misattribution would be involved when people misremember misinformation as having been presented as true. Swire-Thompson et al (2022) found evidence for both transience and misattribution occurring within the context of belief regression. The proportion of people who believed in the misinformation but were unsure of whether it was presented as true or false (committing the sin of transience) increased from 0.6% immediately after corrections were presented to 5.6% 1 month later.…”

Section: The Continued Influence Of Misinformation and Implications F...mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In other words, belief frequently returns toward precorrection levels (Kowalski & Taylor, 2017; Paynter et al, 2019; Swire, Ecker, et al, 2017); this is called belief regression. Swire-Thompson et al (2022) found memory for the correction explained 66% of the variance in belief regression after correcting for measurement reliability. We can conceptualize this into two distinct memory sins: The sin of transience would result in people forgetting that the misinformation has been corrected, leaving them unsure of whether the claim is true or false.…”

Section: The Continued Influence Of Misinformation and Implications F...mentioning

confidence: 97%

Misinformation and the sins of memory: False-belief formation and limits on belief revision.

Newman¹,

Swire‐Thompson²,

Ecker³

2022

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One explanation is that these details can be later retrieved from memory and used as cues to evaluate a claim as false (Brashier & Marsh, 2020 ). Consistent with this account, fact checks become less effective over time, as memory for the corrective information fades (Swire-Thompson et al, 2023 ). Retrieval practice is likely to boost memory for details that may indicate a claim is false.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fact-checkers want people to both read and remember their misinformation debunks. Retrieval practice is one way to increase memory, thus multiple-choice quizzes may be a useful tool for fact-checkers. We tested whether exposure to quizzes improved people’s accuracy ratings for fact-checked claims and their memory for specific information within a fact check. Across three experiments, 1551 US-based online participants viewed fact checks (either health- or politics-related) with or without a quiz. Overall, the fact checks were effective, and participants were more accurate in rating the claims after exposure. In addition, quizzes improved participants’ memory for the details of the fact checks, even 1 week later. However, that increased memory did not lead to more accurate beliefs. Participants’ accuracy ratings were similar in the quiz and no-quiz conditions. Multiple-choice quizzes can be a useful tool for increasing memory, but there is a disconnect between memory and belief.

show abstract

Memory failure predicts belief regression after the correction of misinformation

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 publications

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news

Misinformation and the sins of memory: False-belief formation and limits on belief revision.

Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About