Literature DB >> 20694936

Terrorists brought down the plane!--No, actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information.

Ullrich K H Ecker1, Stephan Lewandowsky, Joe Apai.   

Abstract

It is well known that people often continue to rely on initial misinformation even if this information is later corrected and even if the correction itself is remembered. This article investigated the impact of emotionality of the material on people's ability to discount corrected misinformation. The focus was on moderate levels of emotionality comparable to those elicited by real-world news reports. Emotionality has frequently been shown to have an impact upon reasoning and memory, but the generality of this influence remains unclear. In three experiments, participants read a report of a fictitious plane crash that was initially associated with either an emotionally laden cause (terrorist attack) or an emotionally more neutral cause (bad weather). This initial attribution was followed by a retraction and presentation of an alternative cause (faulty fuel tank). The scenarios demonstrably affected participants' self-reported feelings. However, all three experiments showed that emotionality does not affect the continued influence of misinformation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20694936     DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2010.497927

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)        ISSN: 1747-0218            Impact factor:   2.143


  16 in total

1.  Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; David T W Tang
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-12

2.  Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Briony Swire; Darren Chang
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-06

3.  Failure to accept retractions: A contribution to the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Andrea E O'Rear; Gabriel A Radvansky
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-01

4.  Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation.

Authors:  Man-Pui Sally Chan; Christopher R Jones; Kathleen Hall Jamieson; Dolores Albarracín
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-09-12

5.  Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Olivia Fenton; Kelsey Martin
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2014-02

6.  Memory and truth: correcting errors with true feedback versus overwriting correct answers with errors.

Authors:  Janet Metcalfe; Teal S Eich
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2019-02-13

7.  Comparing the use of open and closed questions for Web-based measures of the continued-influence effect.

Authors:  Saoirse Connor Desai; Stian Reimers
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2019-06

8.  Proximity (Mis)perception: Public Awareness of Nuclear, Refinery, and Fracking Sites.

Authors:  Benjamin A Lyons; Heather Akin; Natalie Jomini Stroud
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2019-08-27       Impact factor: 4.000

9.  Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Luke M Antonio
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-01-15

10.  Finding the signal in the noise: Could social media be utilized for early hospital notification of multiple casualty events?

Authors:  Rachael A Callcut; Sara Moore; Glenn Wakam; Alan E Hubbard; Mitchell J Cohen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.