Literature DB >> 31317393

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

Andrea E O'Rear1,2, Gabriel A Radvansky3.   

Abstract

Previous research has shown that when information about a narrative event is retracted, people continue to use that information even though it has been explicitly identified as incorrect. Not only can this occur for implicitly inferred information, but also when the change is stated explicitly. The current study explored whether this effect reflects, at least in part, an unwillingness of some readers to accept changes to their understanding. Experiment 1 assessed this using a continued influence effect paradigm with an additional probe asking whether participants believed the explicitly stated change. Most did not. Those that did accept it showed evidence of a reduced use of the incorrect information, while those that did not accept it performed similarly to those who received no correction (control). Experiment 2 included an additional explicit instruction that participants could say "don't know" if they were unsure of how to respond. The pattern of results was largely the same as for Experiment 1. Experiment 3 modified the alternative account to increase plausibility, and added two additional stories/question sets to ensure effects were not limited to one set of materials. A greater number of participants found the retractions believable than in Experiments 1 and 2. Nonetheless, a similar pattern of results was found. Overall, these findings suggest that at least some of the evidence for the continued use of retracted information may be due to some people not accepting the retraction, even in the absence of external motivation to disregard it.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acceptance; Correction; Event model; Retraction

Year:  2020        PMID: 31317393     DOI: 10.3758/s13421-019-00967-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  24 in total

1.  Age and the availability of inferences.

Authors:  V P Hamm; L Hasher
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  1992-03

2.  Revising what readers know: updating text representations during narrative comprehension.

Authors:  David N Rapp; Panayiota Kendeou
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-12

3.  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

4.  Repeated failures to obtain selective directed forgetting in lab and online samples and variations in stimuli.

Authors:  Melisa Akan; Lili Sahakyan
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2017-05-15

5.  NASA faked the moon landing--therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: an anatomy of the motivated rejection of science.

Authors:  Stephan Lewandowsky; Klaus Oberauer; Gilles E Gignac
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2013-03-26

6.  Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension.

Authors:  Jesse R Sparks; David N Rapp
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.051

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

Authors:  Ullrich K H Ecker; Stephan Lewandowsky; Joe Apai
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 2.143

8.  Walking through doorways causes forgetting: situation models and experienced space.

Authors:  Gabriel A Radvansky; David E Copeland
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-07

9.  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

10.  Article retracted, but the message lives on.

Authors:  Tobias Greitemeyer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04
View more
  8 in total

1.  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

2.  Timing matters when correcting fake news.

Authors:  Nadia M Brashier; Gordon Pennycook; Adam J Berinsky; David G Rand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Exploring factors that mitigate the continued influence of misinformation.

Authors:  Irene P Kan; Kendra L Pizzonia; Anna B Drummey; Eli J V Mikkelsen
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-11-27

4.  Investigation of the determinants for misinformation correction effectiveness on social media during COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Yuqi Zhang; Bin Guo; Yasan Ding; Jiaqi Liu; Chen Qiu; Sicong Liu; Zhiwen Yu
Journal:  Inf Process Manag       Date:  2022-04-05       Impact factor: 7.466

5.  Comprehensive analysis of retracted journal articles in the field of veterinary medicine and animal health.

Authors:  Mary M Christopher
Journal:  BMC Vet Res       Date:  2022-02-18       Impact factor: 2.741

6.  Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation.

Authors:  Briony Swire-Thompson; John Cook; Lucy H Butler; Jasmyne A Sanderson; Stephan Lewandowsky; Ullrich K H Ecker
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-12-29

7.  Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect.

Authors:  Mikołaj Buczel; Paulina D Szyszka; Adam Siwiak; Malwina Szpitalak; Romuald Polczyk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.752

8.  Does explaining the origins of misinformation improve the effectiveness of a given correction?

Authors:  Saoirse Connor Desai; Stian Reimers
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-09-20
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.