Concepedia

TLDR

Prior research shows that once misinformation is encoded, it continues to shape judgments even after it is later discredited, because memory editing is difficult. Experiments 1A and IB demonstrated that immediate corrections did not reduce misinformation inferences compared to delayed corrections, while Experiment 2 examined whether the presence of misinformation in the comprehension context affected its influence. The studies found that misinformation still drives inferences when it supplies causal structure, but not when merely mentioned, and that offering a plausible causal alternative reduces the continued influence effect.

Abstract

Several lines of research have found that information previously encoded into memory can influence inferences and judgments, even when more recent information discredits it. Previous theories have attributed this to difficulties in editing memory—failing to successfully trace out and alter inferences or explanations generated before a correction. However, in Experiments 1A and IB, Ss who had received an immediate correction made as many inferences based on misinformation as Ss who had received the correction later in the account (and presumably had made more inferences requiring editing.) In a 2nd experiment, the availability (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) of the misinformation within the comprehension context was tested. The results showed that Ss continued to make inferences involving discredited information when it afforded causal structure, but not when only incidentally mentioned or primed during an intervening task. Experiments 3A and 3B found that providing a plausible causal alternative, rather than simply negating misinformation, mitigated the effect. The findings suggest that misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred; however, providing an alternative that replaces the causal structure it affords can reduce the effects of misinformation.

References

YearCitations

Page 1