More Like this

1. Timing matters when correcting fake news

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2020043118  

   Brashier, Nadia M.; Pennycook, Gordon; Berinsky, Adam J.; Rand, David G. (January 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   null (Ed.)

   Countering misinformation can reduce belief in the moment, but corrective messages quickly fade from memory. We tested whether the longer-term impact of fact-checks depends on when people receive them. In two experiments (total N = 2,683), participants read true and false headlines taken from social media. In the treatment conditions, “true” and “false” tags appeared before, during, or after participants read each headline. Participants in a control condition received no information about veracity. One week later, participants in all conditions rated the same headlines’ accuracy. Providing fact-checks after headlines ( debunking ) improved subsequent truth discernment more than providing the same information during ( labeling ) or before ( prebunking ) exposure. This finding informs the cognitive science of belief revision and has practical implications for social media platform designers. 

   more » « less
2. Impact of gist intervention on automated system interpretability and user decision making

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00594-2  

   Gleaves, Lydia_P; Broniatowski, David_A (October 2024, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications)

   Abstract As they become more common, automated systems are also becoming increasingly opaque, challenging their users’ abilities to explain and interpret their outputs. In this study, we test the predictions of fuzzy-trace theory—a leading theory of how people interpret quantitative information—on user decision making after interacting with an online decision aid. We recruited a sample of 205 online crowdworkers and asked them to use a system that was designed to detect URLs that were part of coordinated misinformation campaigns. We examined how user endorsements of system interpretability covaried with performance on this coordinated misinformation detection task and found that subjects who endorsed system interpretability displayed enhanced discernment. This interpretability was, in turn, associated with both objective mathematical ability and mathematical self-confidence. Beyond these individual differences, we evaluated the impact of a theoretically motivated intervention that was designed to promote sensemaking of system output. Participants provided with a “gist” version of system output, expressing the bottom-line meaning of that output, were better able to identify URLs that might have been part of a coordinated misinformation campaign, compared to users given the same information presented as verbatim quantitative metrics. This work highlights the importance of enabling users to grasp the essential, gist meaning of the information they receive from automated systems, which benefits users regardless of individual differences. 

   more » « less
3. Who Falls for Misinformation and Why?

   https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672251328800  

   Hubeny, Tyler_J; Nahon, Lea_S; Ng, Nyx_L; Gawronski, Bertram (March 2025, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin)

   Misinformation is widespread, but only some people accept the false information they encounter. This raises two questions: Who falls for misinformation, and why do they fall for misinformation? To address these questions, two studies investigated associations between 15 individual-difference dimensions and judgments of misinformation as true. Using Signal Detection Theory, the studies further investigated whether the obtained associations are driven by individual differences in truth sensitivity, acceptance threshold, or myside bias. For both political misinformation (Study 1) and misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines (Study 2), truth sensitivity was positively associated with cognitive reflection and actively open-minded thinking, and negatively associated with bullshit receptivity and conspiracy mentality. Although acceptance threshold and myside bias explained considerable variance in judgments of misinformation as true, neither showed robust associations with the measured individual-difference dimensions. The findings provide deeper insights into individual differences in misinformation susceptibility and uncover critical gaps in their scientific understanding. 

   more » « less
4. Protecting memory from misinformation: Warnings modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008595117  

   Karanian, Jessica M.; Rabb, Nathaniel; Wulff, Alia N.; Torrance, McKinzey G.; Thomas, Ayanna K.; Race, Elizabeth (January 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Exposure to even subtle forms of misleading information can significantly alter memory for past events. Memory distortion due to misinformation has been linked to faulty reconstructive processes during memory retrieval and the reactivation of brain regions involved in the initial encoding of misleading details (cortical reinstatement). The current study investigated whether warning participants about the threat of misinformation can modulate cortical reinstatement during memory retrieval and reduce misinformation errors. Participants watched a silent video depicting a crime (original event) and were given an initial test of memory for the crime details. Then, participants listened to an auditory narrative describing the crime in which some original details were altered (misinformation). Importantly, participants who received a warning about the reliability of the auditory narrative either before or after exposure to misinformation demonstrated less susceptibility to misinformation on a final test of memory compared to unwarned participants. Warned and unwarned participants also demonstrated striking differences in neural activity during the final memory test. Compared to participants who did not receive a warning, participants who received a warning (regardless of its timing) demonstrated increased activity in visual regions associated with the original source of information as well as decreased activity in auditory regions associated with the misleading source of information. Stronger visual reactivation was associated with reduced susceptibility to misinformation, whereas stronger auditory reactivation was associated with increased susceptibility to misinformation. Together, these results suggest that a simple warning can modulate reconstructive processes during memory retrieval and reduce memory errors due to misinformation. 

   more » « less
5. Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00488-9  

   Collier, Jessica R; Pillai, Raunak M; Fazio, Lisa K (December 2023, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications)

   Fact-checkers want people to both read and remember their misinformation debunks. Retrieval practice is one way to increase memory, thus multiple-choice quizzes may be a useful tool for fact-checkers. We tested whether exposure to quizzes improved people’s accuracy ratings for fact-checked claims and their memory for specific information within a fact check. Across three experiments, 1551 US-based online participants viewed fact checks (either health- or politics-related) with or without a quiz. Overall, the fact checks were effective, and participants were more accurate in rating the claims after exposure. In addition, quizzes improved participants’ memory for the details of the fact checks, even 1 week later. However, that increased memory did not lead to more accurate beliefs. Participants’ accuracy ratings were similar in the quiz and no-quiz conditions. Multiple-choice quizzes can be a useful tool for increasing memory, but there is a disconnect between memory and belief. 

   more » « less