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

Abstract

The continued influence effect refers to the finding that people often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning even if the information has been retracted. The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of a retraction is determined by its credibility. In particular, we aimed to scrutinize previous findings suggesting that perceived trustworthiness but not perceived expertise of the retraction source determines a retraction's effectiveness, and that continued influence arises only if a retraction is not believed. In two experiments, we found that source trustworthiness but not source expertise indeed influences retraction effectiveness, with retractions from low-trustworthiness sources entirely ineffective. We also found that retraction belief is indeed a predictor of continued reliance on misinformation, but that substantial continued influence effects can still occur with retractions designed to be and rated as highly credible.

The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation

“…Further, research could examine additional factors that impact the amount of discomfort felt in response to a retraction. One possibility is that retractions from more versus less credible sources might be seen as a greater challenge to one's causal understanding of an event (Ecker & Antonio, 2021;Guillory & Geraci, 2013), making such retractions especially uncomfortable to encounter. Additionally, in some cases the amount of discomfort felt in response to a retraction might be impacted by considerations of how accepting or rejecting the retraction might impact one's relationship with the person or entity issuing the retraction (Scoboria & Henkel, 2020).…”

“…In addition to the previously discussed theoretical contributions, this research adds additional granularity to the measurement of psychological mechanisms that might play a role in the CIE. To date, CIE research has largely been divided on the main outcome of interest. Much research has focused on how retractions impact the extent to which participants continue to make inferences about the focal event based on the misinformation (e.g., Ecker & Ang, 2019;Ecker & Antonio, 2021;Ecker, Lewandowsky & Apai, 2011;Ecker et al, 2015;Ecker et al, 2014;Ecker, Lewandowsky, et al, 2011;Ecker et al, 2010;Johnson & Seifert, 1994;Rich & Zaragoza, 2016;Wilkes & Leatherbarrow, 1988). Other research has focused on how retractions impact continued belief that the misinformation is true (e.g., Nyhan & Reifler, 2010;Nyhan et al, 2014;Nyhan et al, 2013;Schwarz et al, 2007;Skurnik et al, 2005;Swire, et al, 2017), though some of this research has measured both outcomes.…”

“…Likewise, one's belief in misinformation might not be altered by a retraction, but one might make few misinformation-based inferences because one possesses other knowledge one judges as more relevant to those inferences. Furthermore, these variables might not simply be alternative outcomes, but rather belief in misinformation could predict one's likelihood of making inferences based on that misinformation (Ecker & Antonio, 2021). Therefore, it seems worthwhile to measure both belief in misinformation and the use of the misinformation when making inferences in the CIE context and to test whether belief in misinformation might mediate the impact of other variables on the use of the misinformation to form inferences.…”

Review of social science research on the impact of countermeasures against influence operations

“…One form of intervention designed to combat misinformation focuses on providing source information to viewers. Across a number of studies, manipulating source trustworthiness was more impactful than knowledge of source credibility (i.e., Ecker & Antonio, 2021;Pluviano & Della Sala, 2020). In some cases, emphasizing publisher information had little to no effect on accuracy ratings (Dias et al, 2020;Wintersieck et al, 2018).…”

Refuting Spurious COVID-19 Treatment Claims Reduces Demand and Misinformation Sharing

“…Based on this research, several best-practice recommendations have been identified. Specifically, refutations should: (a) come from a trustworthy source (Ecker & Antonio, 2020;Guillory & Geraci, 2013) and, if applicable, discredit the disinformant by exposing their hidden agenda (Walter & Tukachinsky, 2020); (b) make salient the discrepancy between false and factual information, which has been shown to facilitate knowledge revision (Ecker, Hogan, & Lewandowsky, 2017;Kendeou, Butterfuss, Kim, & van Boekel, 2019); (c) explain why the misinformation is false, providing factual information to replace the false information in people's mental models (Paynter et al, 2019;Swire et al, 2017); and (d) draw attention towards any misleading strategies employed by misinformants (Cook et al, 2018;MacFarlane, Hurlstone, & Ecker, 2018, 2020a.…”