An official website of the United States government
Abstract The efficacy of fake news corrections in improving memory and belief accuracy may depend on how often adults see false information before it is corrected. Two experiments tested the competing predictions that repeating fake news before corrections will either impair or improve memory and belief accuracy. These experiments also examined whether fake news exposure effects would differ for younger and older adults due to age-related differences in the recollection of contextual details. Younger and older adults read real and fake news headlines that appeared once or thrice. Next, they identified fake news corrections among real news headlines. Later, recognition and cued recall tests assessed memory for real news, fake news, if corrections occurred, and beliefs in retrieved details. Repeating fake news increased detection and remembering of corrections, correct real news retrieval, and erroneous fake news retrieval. No age differences emerged for detection of corrections, but younger adults remembered corrections better than older adults. At test, correct fake news retrieval for earlier-detected corrections was associated with better real news retrieval. This benefit did not differ between age groups in recognition but was greater for younger than older adults in cued recall. When detected corrections were not remembered at test, repeated fake news increased memory errors. Overall, both age groups believed correctly retrieved real news more than erroneously retrieved fake news to a similar degree. These findings suggest that fake news repetition effects on subsequent memory accuracy depended on age differences in recollection-based retrieval of fake news and that it was corrected.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on December 1, 2025
Belief-consistent information is most shared despite being the least surprising
Abstract In the classical information theoretic framework, information “value” is proportional to how novel/surprising the information is. Recent work building on such notions claimed that false news spreads faster than truth online because false news is more novel and therefore surprising. However, another determinant of surprise, semantic meaning (e.g., information’s consistency or inconsistency with prior beliefs), should also influence value and sharing. Examining sharing behavior on Twitter, we observed separate relations of novelty and belief consistency with sharing. Though surprise could not be assessed in those studies, belief consistency should relate to less surprise, suggesting the relevance of semantic meaning beyond novelty. In two controlled experiments, belief-consistent (vs. belief-inconsistent) information was shared more despite consistent information being the least surprising. Manipulated novelty did not predict sharing or surprise. Thus, classical information theoretic predictions regarding perceived value and sharing would benefit from considering semantic meaning in contexts where people hold pre-existing beliefs.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2137806
- PAR ID:
- 10571340
- Publisher / Repository:
- Nature Scientific Reports
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Nature Scientific Reports
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 1
- ISSN:
- 2045-2322
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Microaggressions are subtle, offensive comments that are directed at minority group members and are characteristically ambiguous in meaning. In two studies, we explored how observers interpreted such ambiguous statements by comparing microaggressions to faux pas, offenses caused by the speaker having an incidental false belief. In Experiment 1, we compared third-party observers’ blame and intentionality judgments of microaggressions with those for social faux pas. Despite judging neither microaggressions nor social faux pas to be definitively intentional, participants judged microaggressions as more blameworthy. In Experiment 2, microaggressions without explicit mental state information elicited a similar profile of judgments to those accompanied by explicit prejudiced or ignorant beliefs. Although they were, like faux pas, judged not to cause harm intentionally, microaggressive comments appeared to be judged more blameworthy on account of enduring prejudice thought to be lurking behind a speaker's false beliefs. Our current research demonstrates a distinctive profile of moral judgment for microaggressions.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)The growing amount of online information today has increased opportunity to discover interesting and useful information. Various recommender systems have been designed to help people discover such information. No matter how accurately the recommender algorithms perform, users’ engagement with recommended results has been complained being less than ideal. In this study, we touched on two human-centered objectives for recommender systems: user satisfaction and curiosity, both of which are believed to play roles in maintaining user engagement and sustain such engagement in the long run. Specifically, we leveraged the concept of surprise and used an existing computational model of surprise to identify relevantly surprising health articles aiming at improving user satisfaction and inspiring their curiosity. We designed a user study to first test the validity of the surprise model in a health news recommender system, called LuckyFind. Then user satisfaction and curiosity were evaluated. We find that the computational surprise model helped identify surprising recommendations at little cost of user satisfaction. Users gave higher ratings on interestingness than usefulness for those surprising recommendations. Curiosity was inspired more for those individuals who have a larger capacity to experience curiosity. Over half of the users have changed their preferences after using LuckyFind, either discovering new areas, reinforcing their existing interests, or stopping following those they did not want anymore. The insights of the research will make researchers and practitioners rethink the objectives of today’s recommender systems as being more human-centered beyond algorithmic accuracy.more » « less
-
Recent years have seen a surge in research on why people fall for misinformation and what can be done about it. Drawing on a framework that conceptualizes truth judgments of true and false information as a signal-detection problem, the current article identifies three inaccurate assumptions in the public and scientific discourse about misinformation: (1) People are bad at discerning true from false information, (2) partisan bias is not a driving force in judgments of misinformation, and (3) gullibility to false information is the main factor underlying inaccurate beliefs. Counter to these assumptions, we argue that (1) people are quite good at discerning true from false information, (2) partisan bias in responses to true and false information is pervasive and strong, and (3) skepticism against belief-incongruent true information is much more pronounced than gullibility to belief-congruent false information. These conclusions have significant implications for person-centered misinformation interventions to tackle inaccurate beliefs.more » « less
-
Abstract Misinformation exposure can cause inaccurate beliefs and memories. These unwanted outcomes can be mitigated when misinformation reminders—veracity-labeled statements that repeat earlier-read false information—appear before corrections with true information. The present experiment used eye tracking to examine the role of attention while encoding corrective details in the beneficial effects of reminder-based corrections. Participants read headlines in a belief-updating task that included a within-subjects manipulation of correction format. They first rated the familiarity and veracity of true and false headlines (Phase 1). Then, they read true headlines that corrected false headlines or affirmed true headlines (Phase 2). The true headlines appeared (1) without veracity labels, (2) with veracity labels, or (3) with misinformation reminders and veracity labels. Finally, participants re-rated the veracity of the Phase 1 headlines and rated their memory for whether those headlines were corrected in Phase 2 (Phase 3). Reminder-based corrections led to the greatest reduction in false beliefs, best high confidence recognition of corrections, and earliest eye fixations to the true details of corrections during encoding in Phase 2. Corrections remembered with the highest confidence rating were associated with more and earlier fixations to true details in correction statements in Phase 2. Collectively, these results suggest that misinformation reminders directed attention to corrective details, which improved encoding and subsequent memory for veracity information. These results have applied implications in suggesting that optimal correction formats should include features that direct attention to, and thus support encoding of, the contrast between false and true information.more » « less
