Integrating Relational Reasoning and Knowledge Revision During Reading

Kendeou, Panayiota; Butterfuss, Reese; Boekel, Martin Van; O’Brien, Edward J.

doi:10.1007/s10648-016-9381-3

Cited by 29 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second factor could be the general salience of the misinformation. There are some claims in the literature that misinformation that is more salient is more easily retracted (e.g., Ecker et al, ; Kendeou, Butterfuss, van Boekel, & O’Brien, ; Kendeou, Walsh, Smith, & O’Brien, ; Putnam, Wahlheim, & Jacoby, ; Stadtler, Scharrer, Brummernhenrich, & Bromme, ). However, to explain the observed data, this account would have to assume that misconduct in Labor politicians was a particularly unsalient topic for Liberal participants, an assumption that seems fairly implausible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

Ecker

2018

Political Psychology

136

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misinformation often continues to influence people's memory and inferential reasoning after it has been retracted; this is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Previous research investigating the role of attitude-based motivated reasoning in this context has found conflicting results: Some studies have found that worldview can have a strong impact on the magnitude of the CIE, such that retractions are less effective if the misinformation is congruent with a person's relevant attitudes, in which case the retractions can even backfire. Other studies have failed to find evidence for an effect of attitudes on the processing of misinformation corrections. The present study used political misinformation-specifically fictional scenarios involving misconduct by politicians from left-wing and right-wing parties-and tested participants identifying with those political parties. Results showed that in this type of scenario, partisan attitudes have an impact on the processing of retractions, in particular (1) if the misinformation relates to a general assertion rather than just a specific singular event and (2) if the misinformation is congruent with a conservative partisanship. KEY WORDS: continued influence effect, misinformation, motivated reasoning, political attitudes, worldview-backfire effect An information landscape that is marked by social media, citizen journalism, and fast-paced information flow places specific cognitive demands on information consumers. One such demand is that actualizations and corrections of outdated, no longer relevant, or invalidated information require continuous memory updating and knowledge revision. This is a difficult task, and it is well-known from the existing literature that invalid information continues to influence people's memory and inferential reasoning after the information has been corrected, even if people demonstrably remember the correction. This is known as the continued influence effect of misinformation

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

Ecker

2018

Political Psychology

136

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although these findings collectively oppose the familiarity backfire notion, they align well with theoretical accounts that the co-activation of the misconception and corrective information facilitates knowledge revision ( Kendeou & O’Brien, 2014 ). It is possible that pairing the misconception and correction increases the likelihood that people notice discrepancies between the two, facilitating the integration of new information into their existing mental model ( Elsey & Kindt, 2017 ; Kendeou, Butterfuss, Van Boekel, & O’Brien, 2017 ).…”

Section: Familiarity Backfire Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.

Swire‐Thompson¹,

DeGutis²,

Lazer³

2020

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

232

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most concerning notions for science communicators, fact-checkers, and advocates of truth, is the backfire effect; this is when a correction leads to an individual increasing their belief in the very misconception the correction is aiming to rectify. There is currently a debate in the literature as to whether backfire effects exist at all, as recent studies have failed to find the phenomenon, even under theoretically favorable conditions. In this review, we summarize the current state of the worldview and familiarity backfire effect literatures. We subsequently examine barriers to measuring the backfire phenomenon, discuss approaches to improving measurement and design, and conclude with recommendations for fact-checkers. We suggest that backfire effects are not a robust empirical phenomenon, and more reliable measures, powerful designs, and stronger links between experimental design and theory, could greatly help move the field ahead.

show abstract

“…In early work by Kay (1955;see also Howe, 1970), people heard two passages and made repeated recalls separated by a week or more. After each attempt, people heard the passages again as an opportunity to correct any inaccurately recalled information.…”

Section: Change Can Be Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

O'Rear

Radvansky

2019

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Integrating Relational Reasoning and Knowledge Revision During Reading

Cited by 29 publications

References 67 publications

Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

Political Attitudes and the Processing of Misinformation Corrections

Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About