Warning weakens retrieval-enhanced suggestibility only when it is given shortly after misinformation: The critical importance of timing.

Chan, Jason C. K.; O’Donnell, Rachel; Manley, Krista D.

doi:10.1037/xap0000394

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 106 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In both experiments, participants exhibited near-chance performance for these items, and accuracy only exceeded chance at the highest level of confidence. This poor confidence-accuracy relationship shows the evidence-contaminating power of misleading suggestions and replicates recent findings that showed that, in the absence of a warning, misinformation can damage both the accuracy of eyewitness memory reports and the diagnosticity of eyewitness confidence (Chan et al, 2022).…”

Section: Applied Implicationssupporting

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation

O’Donnell,

Chan,

Foster

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable evidence has shown that repeating the same misinformation increases its influence (i.e., repetition effects). However, very little research has examined whether having multiple witnesses present misinformation relative to one witness (i.e., source variability) increases the influence of misinformation. In two experiments, we orthogonally manipulated repetition and source variability. Experiment 1 used written interview transcripts to deliver misinformation and showed that repetition increased eyewitness suggestibility, but source variability did not. In Experiment 2, we increased source saliency by delivering the misinformation to participants via videos instead of written interviews, such that each witness was visibly and audibly distinct. Despite this stronger manipulation, there was no effect of source variability in Experiment 2. In addition, we reported a meta-analysis (k = 19) for the repeated misinformation effect and a small-scale meta-analysis (k = 8) for the source variability effect. Results from these meta-analyses were consistent with the results of our individual experiments. Altogether, our results suggest that participants respond based on retrieval fluency rather than source-specifying information.

show abstract

Section: Applied Implicationssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In contrast, as participants’ confidence rose, so did their recognition accuracy for the neutral items. Therefore, encountering misinformation severely undermined the diagnosticity of eyewitness confidence ( Chan et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation

O’Donnell,

Chan,

Foster

et al. 2023

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We predicted that warning would operate to reduce both the misinformation and RES effect in Experiment 1, even in a context where the initial test was delayed from the original event, thereby reducing its ability to support original event memory (e.g., Pansky, 2012). In Experiment 2, we predicted that warnings would be ineffective, in a situation where the initial test of memory was delayed replicating the findings by Chan et al (2022). Further, we predicted that while warnings would reduce average confidence found on misleading trials in Experiment 1, it would have no effect on average confidence when delayed by 24 hours (Experiment 2).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…We employed this retention interval to examine the influence of warnings on final test performance in situations where initial retrieval of the original event would be less likely to improve memory for the original event ( e.g., Pansky, 2012) and still exert an influence on learning and incorporating post-event information ( e.g., Chan & Langley, 2011). We also examined average confidence as research has consistently demonstrated that participants are often highly confident in misinformation (Bonham & González-Vallejo, 2009), and warnings may improve the confidence-accuracy relationship (Chan et al, 2022;Higham et al, 2017;Karanian et al, 2020;Thomas et al, 2010).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Timing of Pre-Retrieval Warnings Matters in Reducing Memory Errors in a Repeated Testing Misinformation Study

Wulff,

Karanian,

Race

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals are often exposed to information regarding previously witnessed events. The misinformation effect occurs when inaccurate post-event information impairs accuracy on a subsequent test of memory for the original event. The misinformation effect is increased when an test is given prior to exposure to post-event information, a phenomenon termed Retrieval Enhanced Suggestibility (RES). In two experiments, we investigated the value of general warnings prior to retrieval towards reducing RES. In both experiments, participants were exposed to an original event, and after a 24-hour retention interval either took a test about that original event or were not tested before being exposed to a narrative that included misleading details about the original event. In Experiment 1, a warning about the quality of the post-event narrative was then given followed by the final test. In Experiment 2, the warning and final test were delayed by 24 hours. We found that warnings were effective in Experiment 1 in reducing RES. However, in Experiment 2, when warnings were delayed, participants were no longer able to effectively use them to reduce RES. These results suggest timing of warnings matter and that warnings are most effective when given in close proximity to misinformation.

show abstract

“…To reduce the impact of misinformation, many prominent online platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, have implemented warning messages whereby misinformation is explicitly labelled [15][16][17]. This proactive approach has been shown to diminish beliefs in misinformation [18,19], though this effect is only partial [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exposure to misleading and unreliable information reduces active information-seeking

Jiwa,

Yu,

Boonyaratvej

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even when identified, misleading and unreliable information lead to poor decision-making. We investigated whether people actively compensate for this by seeking additional information. Across six experiments, participants predicted the outcomes of lotteries based on information they received from several information sources, each with an explicitly-stated level of reliability. Before making their prediction, participants were given the opportunity to bid to view an additional information source. In different conditions, sources either had only positive reliability (reliably right), or contained some random (unreliable), or below-chance reliability (reliably wrong) information. Though the same information was conveyed in each condition, exposure to unreliable and reliably wrong information reduced choice accuracy. Crucially, we also found it paradoxically reduced information-seeking. In follow-up experiments, participants rated their decision confidence. Confidence was reduced when unreliable or reliably wrong sources were present, suggesting that decreased information-seeking occurred despite lower confidence. In conclusion, even when labelled, misleading and unreliable information negatively impacts belief formation, and also paradoxically reduces curiosity.

show abstract

Warning weakens retrieval-enhanced suggestibility only when it is given shortly after misinformation: The critical importance of timing.

Cited by 9 publications

References 106 publications

Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation

Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation

Timing of Pre-Retrieval Warnings Matters in Reducing Memory Errors in a Repeated Testing Misinformation Study

Exposure to misleading and unreliable information reduces active information-seeking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About