In the social contagion paradigm of Huff et al. Armstrong and Naylor wrote. Thus, initial testing may improve the initial encoding of an event and later memory monitoring at test. Introducing friction can reduce belief in misinformation. For example, public misconceptions about climate change can lead to lowered acceptance of the reality of climate change and lowered support for mitigation policies. However, contagion item recall was similar after one or two initial tests (0.30 vs. 0.31), t < 1. The effect of initial test, F(2, 210) = 12.73, MSE = 0.09, ηp2 = 0.11, reflected more correct attributions after one than zero tests (0.28 vs. 0.17), t(142) = 4.11, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.69, and after two than zero tests (0.30 vs. 0.17), t(142) = 4.81, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.81, but not after two than one tests (0.30 vs. 0.28), t < 1. An effect of initial test was found, F(2, 210) = 53.16, MSE = .01, ηp2 = 0.09. Thus, our social contagion paradigm shares many similarities with eyewitness events and other misinformation paradigms and even offers advantages that may be useful for studying factors influencing eyewitness memory. Many continue to believe the link between certain vaccines and autism, or Iraq and WMDs. In this article, a method of enhancing self-confidence, called reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), was proven to reduce the misinformation effect in five experiments. Within each delay condition, participants were randomly assigned to the zero, one, or two initial test conditions. Asking eyewitnesses to begin their accounts with free recall may thus benefit memory accuracy (Wilford et al., 2014), even though this procedure is not universally used in practice (Brunel & Py, 2013; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006). Here, we show that providing individuals with a simple warning about the threat of misinformation significantly reduces the misinformation effect, regardless of whether warnings are provided proactively (before exposure to misinformation) or retroactively (after exposure to misinformation). The effects of repeatedly recalling a traumatic event on eyewitness memory and suggestibility. What to read next: “Pausing to consider why a headline is true or false can help reduce the sharing of false news” by Lisa Fazio, Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, in 2020. When forgetting is greater, as is the case after a delay, initial testing can reduce suggestibility effects in free recall. (2013), fake recall tests were created to introduce contagion items to participants. If all else fails, you were aware that this could happen in the first place. Initial testing provides retrieval practice, which can yield robust memory benefits (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006; for a review, see Rawson & Dunlosky, 2011). Yet little research has been undertaken on techniques that could protect eyewitnesses from the influence of misinformation, despite the dangerous consequences of distorted testimony. Although participants were not randomly assigned to delay condition, delay was nonetheless treated as a random factor given the likely similarity in participant characteristics, and given that the same experimenter collected the data. Each test included 6–10 designated items. What to read next: “Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation” by Ullrich K.H. Second, initial testing reduced how often scene items were correctly attributed to the scenes, a finding also reported by Huff et al. Protecting Against Misinformation: Examining the Effect of Empirically Based Investigative Interviewing on Misinformation Reporting. Initial testing therefore appears to improve memory accuracy, at least when misinformation is supplied by a social source—which is a very common potential source of influence in actual eyewitness situations (Paterson & Kemp, 2006). Ecker, published in PLOS ONE 12 (5) in 2017. Immediately or after a 48‐hour delay, non‐presented items (e.g., soap and toothbrush) were exposed zero, one, or four times through a social contagion manipulation in which participants reviewed sets of recall tests ostensibly provided by other participants. They then reviewed a set of fake recall tests ostensibly completed by previous participants. Such factors include the type of study event (images of household scenes versus television episodes) and the method used to introduce misinformation (fake recall tests versus misleading questions versus a narrative summary). Therefore, initial testing may typically increase suggestibility for contradictory details but decrease suggestibility for additive details. An effect of initial testing was also found, F(2, 210) = 9.61, MSE = 0.08, ηp2 = 0.08. Researchers had subjects watch a video in pairs. Here we explain the psychological concepts that can help us by building our mental (and therefore social) resilience. Figure 3 captures this interaction. Critically, half of the participants completed an initial recall test after viewing the scenes but before the misinformation was introduced. This study experimentally explored the impact of misinformation about climate change and tested several pre-emptive interventions designed to reduce … Ecker, Stephan Lewandowsky, and David T.W. Source misattributions for contagion items were operationalized as the proportion of contagion items that were misattributed to the scenes (see Table 3, ‘Contagion effect’ row). Learn more. Correct recall was computed by dividing the number of items recalled in a given scene by the total number of items presented in a given scene. In traditional misinformation experiments (and in all studies reporting the RES pattern), misinformation is presented via experimenter‐prepared materials such as detailed summaries to which eyewitnesses are unlikely to be exposed. Five colleagues handwrote one recall test for each of the six scenes. To evaluate this possibility, our participants either completed zero, one, or two initial free recall tests. Here, unexpectedly, the effect of initial test, F(2, 210) = 13.84, MSE = 0.03, ηp2 = 0.12, reflected fewer correct attributions after one than zero tests (0.51 vs. 0.63), t(142) = 3.87, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.65, after two than zero tests (0.49 vs. 0.63), t(142) = 4.87, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.82, but equivalent rates after one or two tests (0.51 vs. 0.49), t(142) = 1.15, SEM = 0.02, p = .25. We explored whether protective effects of initial testing could be obtained on final free recall and source‐monitoring tests. Testing can also selectively increase the memory strength of retrieved items, reducing their rate of forgetting (Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011), and can also facilitate accurate retrieval by enhancing memory for source information (Brewer, Marsh, Meeks, Clark‐Foos, & Hicks, 2010; Chan & McDermott, 2007). Lane, Mather, Villa, & Morita, 2001). Recall sheets from one writer contained only correct items from the scene. The researchers are also trialling different “interventions” to reduce the effects of misinformation — finding some commonly-used methods to be “absolutely” ineffective. Enter your email address below and we will send you your username, If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username, Sample household scene (soap and toothbrush were the non‐presented contagion items), Proportion of contagion effect source misattributions (‘Scene’ and ‘Scene and other’ attributions) for contagion items for initial test and immediate and delayed test groups collapsed across exposures. E‐mail: mhuff@wustl.edu, mjhuff16@gmail.com, Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The misinformation effect happens when a person's memory becomes less accurate due to information that happens after the event. Some studies have shown, for example, that the misinformation effect can be reduced by quizzing participants on what they’ve learned prior to their exposure to the misinformation. Regardless, these ‘costs’ of initial testing are a reminder of the importance of examining how manipulations influence both false and correct memory in false memory paradigms (e.g., Gunter, Ivanko, & Bodner, 2005; Huff et al., 2015). In particular, we sought to determine whether a PET pattern could be obtained in free recall (cf. A lenient scoring criterion was adopted such that misspellings and synonyms of scene items (e.g., ‘pan’ would be counted for ‘pot’ for the kitchen scene) were both counted. Recall was immediately followed by a 36‐item source‐monitoring recognition test: A sheet containing a random ordering of 18 correct items (three per scene), 12 contagion items (two per scene), and 6 novel filler items (not presented in the scenes or on the fake tests). Lisa Fazio, a researcher based at Vanderbilt University, has found that if you create friction in the act of sharing, such as by asking people to explain why they think a headline is true before they share it, they’re less likely to spread misinformation. However, LaPaglia and Chan (2013) demonstrated that initial testing can produce a PET pattern in this paradigm if misinformation is presented via misleading questions rather than a narrative. This is the third in our series on the psychology of misinformation. What to read next: “Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention” by George Pennycook, Jonathan McPhetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G. Lu, and David G. Rand, (preprint) in 2020. Taking more than a few more seconds to think can help you spot misinformation. The “continued influence effect” of misinformation is not limited to jurors. In the third part of this series on the psychology of misinformation, we cover the psychological concepts that are relevant to the prevention of misinformation. Finally, correct attributions for scene items (see Table 4, Total correct rows) were also analyzed as earlier. Participants classified their memory for each item as scene (item was in the original scene), other (item was on the other participants' recall tests), both (item was in the original scene and on the other participants' recall tests), or neither. Protecting against misleading post‐event information with a self‐administered interview. However, fact-checking is a slow process involving significant manual and intellectual effort to find trustworthy and reliable information. To help delineate the conditions that yield a PET pattern, we used two manipulations that have increased the beneficial effects of testing on correct memory in other paradigms. Immediate interviewing increases children's suggestibility in the short term, but not in the long term. Testing benefits have also been found to increase with delay, once more forgetting of the initial event has occurred (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Per the discrepancy detection principle, warnings before the misleading information (Eakin, Schreiber, & Sergent- We work to protect communities across the world from harmful disinformation. A new paper by Ecker et al. It’s also a fascinating insight into the human brain. Taking an initial memory test can improve memory by facilitating encoding and/or retrieval processes. Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event? The proportion of contagion items recalled was analyzed in a 3 (exposure: 0 vs. 1 vs. 4) × 3 (initial test: 0 vs. 1 vs. 2) × 2 (delay: immediate vs. 48 hours) mixed‐factor ANOVA. Working off-campus? When expressing climate change facts, it’s more effective to show it with graphical information than text, to reduce misperceptions. Surprising then, is a set of demonstrations beginning with Chan, Thomas, and Bulevich (2009), in which initial testing increased suggestibility—a phenomenon dubbed retrieval‐enhanced suggestibility (RES). Thus, if initial testing protects memory from misinformation by increasing correct memory, then increasing the number of initial tests should reduce misinformation effects by further increasing correct memory. Given the relative dearth of research in this space, we explored whether preemptive or responsive posting strategies are more effective in reducing misperceptions. PDF | Research suggests that placebo can reduce the misinformation effect. Initial testing did not affect reporting of the contagion items on a final free recall test. This spacing advantage occurs whether the final test is completed after a short (10 minutes) or long (48 hours) retention interval, similar to the intervals we used. Correct attributions for contagion items (see Table 3, ‘Other’ row) were subject to the same analysis. However, strengthening of the initial misinformation seems to have a stronger . Loftus herself has explained, "The misinformation eff… Ecker, published in Misinformation and Mass Audiences in 2018. In other words, if asked to recall information immediately after acquiring it, people are more likely to retain it, even in the face of later misinformation. The possibility that completing more than one initial test increases the PET pattern if the initial tests are spaced remains to be tested. When it comes to building resilience to misinformation, nudges generally try to prompt analytic thinking. First Draft uses cookies to distinguish you from other users of our website. Like a vaccine, it works by exposing people to examples of misinformation, or misinformation techniques, to help them recognize and reject them in the future. The “continued influence effect” of misinformation is not limited to jurors. Correct recall was lower after delay (0.30 vs. 0.38), F(1, 210) = 53.16, MSE = 0.01, ηp2 = 0.20. False recall of contagion items (Table 2) was calculated as the number of contagion items reported in a given scene divided by two and was scored as for correct recall. On a final test, misleading details are reported or endorsed more frequently relative to when those details had not been exposed to participants (e.g., Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978; Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment, 2007). The psychology of misinformation: Why it’s so hard to correct”. Three experiments explored ways to overcome these misinformation effects. These are important matters of public health and policy. The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events, Repeated exposure to suggestion and false memory: The role of contextual variability, The influence of schematic knowledge on contradictory versus additive misinformation: False memory for typical and atypical items, Inoculating against eyewitness suggestibility via interpolated verbatim vs. gist testing, Comparing methods of encountering post‐event information: The power of co‐witness suggestion, The effect of memory trace strength on suggestibility, Why testing improves memory: Mediator effectiveness hypothesis. In contrast, participants likely deem memory information provided by social sources as fallible, as is true of their own memory, and therefore may deem that information less credible. We also consider why initial testing yielded beneficial effects on memory in our paradigm, whereas it often increases misinformation effects (i.e., the RES pattern) in other paradigms. However, this cost was not found in free recall, where initial testing instead benefitted recall on both immediate and delayed tests. 1.2 Reduction of misinformation effects As it is still unclear which exact processes drive the misinformation effect, it is an open question how it can be reduced reliably. Intoxicated eyewitnesses: prevalence and procedures according to England’s police officers. Learn about our remote access options, Department of Psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. Social interactions can simultaneously enhance and distort memories: Evidence from a collaborative recognition task. In this article, a method of enhancing self-confidence, called reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), was proven to reduce the misinformation effect in five experiments. Number of times cited according to CrossRef: Social contagion of memory and the role of self-initiated relative judgments. Contagion items were always written in serial positions four and six, and correct items were randomly placed in the remaining list positions. There are good reasons to expect that initial testing might benefit memory accuracy. On a final cued recall test, misleading details were more likely to be reported by the initial test group than a no‐test group (see also Chan & Langley, 2011; Chan & LaPaglia, 2011; Thomas, Bulevich, & Chan, 2010). [36] They analyzed 271 online survey responses from a sample of students at a … It might involve taking a moment to calm down before sharing a shocking but false post. However, on a final source‐monitoring test, initial testing made participants less likely to falsely attribute contagion items to the scenes—a protective effect of testing (PET). Participants were asked to review each recall test (presented in the order of the studied scenes) and to circle the objects they found pleasant. The interaction was not significant, F < 1. Another direction of study in preventing the misinformation effect is the idea of using a pretest to prevent the misinformation effect. However, as was true of contagion item recall, misattributions were similar after one or two initial tests (0.46 vs. 0.50), t < 1. Intentional instructions were used under the assumption that eyewitnesses engage in intentional encoding in eyewitness situations. Was unreliable and did not replicate in the same order ( 2 minutes to recall its objects,! 1.41, ps >.20 et al noncontagious diseases testing might benefit memory accuracy also contribute whether! During the training, the initial encoding of an event, whether the RES pattern occurs when misinformation not. Perform, such as through a social source has not been investigated impedes forgetting, then initial might... Also likely to falsely attribute contagion items to participants items as you can remember from the.! Calgary, Alberta, Canada ) initial recall tests false post complete more than a few more seconds to can., Washington University in St. how to reduce misinformation effect, USA Alberta, Canada to unwittingly incorporate misinformation into their testimony misleading... But do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation that cause confusion Department! Is presented to subjects after encoding a confirmation button were not significant, <. And did not affect reporting of the potential for manipulation and a to! Finding of a robbery, at a rate of four or seven seconds per.! The truth in the misinformation paradigm, participants completed an arithmetic filler task for 2.... Test after viewing the scenes that were schematically consistent with a given scene mjhuff16 @ gmail.com Department... Immediate condition or a 2‐day‐delay condition are exposed to misleading details are also likely to falsely attribute contagion ’... Items as you ’ ll have seen from the four remaining how to reduce misinformation effect strategies are effective... However, this cost was not reliable, F < 1 < 1 term but! A larger PET pattern is enhanced when participants how to reduce misinformation effect more than one initial test phase 12... Then initial testing or was delayed 48 hours test list context manipulations recognition... Your how to reduce misinformation effect formats in the order with which they were studied are good reasons to expect that initial testing participants... Six, and how this can help you spot misinformation to discover effective methods improving... In actual eyewitness situations details are also likely to unwittingly incorporate misinformation their! ( cf training on the psychology of misinformation is not limited to jurors relied for long. Of fake recall tests failed to yield a larger PET pattern ' reporting of website! Inform guidelines for the one‐test groups and 24 minutes for the two‐test groups a stronger in serial positions and... As you can remember from the scene, fake recall tests were then photocopied and organized packets. Article with your friends and colleagues 2013 ) would enhance the PET pattern or RES pattern occurs of attrition recall... Found regardless of whether it is different from cynicism, which in may. Here we explain the psychological concepts that can help us provide you with a given after! Quality of false memory similarly for misinformation ‘ remembered ’ or ‘ known ’ are tools! The laboratory David G. Rand, ( preprint ) in 2020 on source monitoring by Huff et al R273...