Literature DB >> 9835062

Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation.

H M Johnson1, C M Seifert.   

Abstract

The research examined whether corrected misinformation influences anaphoric inferences people make during subsequent reading. Participants read a set of corrected-misinformation and no-misinformation stories and made judgments about probe words that were either appropriate or inappropriate anaphoric referents. At a short delay, the results showed less activation for appropriate referents that were corrections of misinformation. At longer delays, the activation of appropriate referents showed no significant difference, but misinformation probes were more quickly recognized than were inappropriate referents that were incidentally mentioned in control story versions. In all conditions, appropriate referents showed more activation than inappropriate ones. The results suggest that corrected misinformation can continue to influence on-line reading processes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9835062     DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.24.6.1483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  5 in total

1.  Readers' use of source information in text comprehension.

Authors:  Jason L G Braasch; Jean-François Rouet; Nicolas Vibert; M Anne Britt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2012-04

2.  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

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

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

4.  Debunking myths about contraceptive safety among women in Kingston, Jamaica: Pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Tina Hylton-Kong; Markus J Steiner; Althea Bailey; Maria Palazzi; Maria F Gallo
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2021-01-09       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Believing in nothing and believing in everything: The underlying cognitive paradox of anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitudes.

Authors:  Devora Newman; Stephan Lewandowsky; Ruth Mayo
Journal:  Pers Individ Dif       Date:  2022-01-17
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.