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

Abstract

Misinformation often affects inferences and judgments even after it has been retracted and discredited. This is known as the continued influence effect. Memory processes have been theorized to contribute to the continued influence effect, and much previous research has focussed on the role of long-term memory processes at the time misinformation is retrieved during inferential reasoning and judgments. Recently, however, experimental research has focussed upon the role of working memory (WM) processes engaged in the updating and integration of information, when the retraction is encoded. From an individual differences perspective, susceptibility to continued influence effects should be predicted by a person’s WM abilities, if continued reliance on misinformation is influenced, at least in part, by insufficient integration of the initial misinformation and its subsequent retraction. Consequently, we hypothesized that WM capacity would predict susceptibility to continued influence effects uniquely and more substantially than short-term memory (STM) capacity. Participants (N = 216) completed a continued-influence task, as well as a battery of WM and STM capacity tasks. Based on a latent variable model, our hypothesis was supported (WM capacity: β = -.36, p = .013; STM capacity: β = .22, p = .187). Consequently, we suggest that low WM capacity is a measurable “risk factor” for continued reliance on misinformation.

Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking.

“…This possibility is broadly consistent with the recently documented association between belief in fake news and reduced analytic thinking (Pennycook & Rand, 2018a). Given the theoretical connection between analytic thinking and working memory (Evans & Stanovich, 2013), this possibility is also consistent with research indicating that retracted misinformation (i.e., misinformation that is declared incorrect after dissemination) has a greater impact on beliefs in individuals with lower working memory capacities (Brydges, Gignac, & Ecker, 2018).…”