False memories for true and false vaccination information form in line with pre-existing vaccine opinions.

Ciara M Greene, Constance de Saint Laurent, Karen Hegarty, Gillian Murphy
Author Information
  1. Ciara M Greene: School of Psychology University College Dublin Dublin 4 Ireland. ORCID
  2. Constance de Saint Laurent: School of Psychology University College Dublin Dublin 4 Ireland. ORCID
  3. Karen Hegarty: School of Psychology University College Dublin Dublin 4 Ireland. ORCID
  4. Gillian Murphy: School of Applied Psychology University College Cork Cork Ireland. ORCID

Abstract

Misinformation continually threatens efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic, with vaccine misinformation now a key concern. False memories for misinformation can influence behavioural intentions, yet little is known about the factors affecting (false) memories for vaccine-related news items. Across two experiments (total  = 1481), this paper explores the effects of pre-existing vaccine opinions on reported memories for true and false news items. In Study 1, participants ( = 817) were exposed to fabricated pro- or anti-vaccine news items, and then asked if they have a memory of this news event having occurred. In Study 2, participants ( = 646) viewed true pro- or anti-vaccine news items. News items were more likely to be remembered when they aligned with participants' pre-existing vaccine beliefs, with stronger effects for pro-vaccine information. We conclude by encouraging researchers to consider the role of attitudinal bias when developing interventions to reduce susceptibility to misinformation.

Keywords

References

  1. Memory. 2010 Jul;18(5):543-55 [PMID: 20623420]
  2. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2022 May;48(5):750-765 [PMID: 34180276]
  3. Memory. 2007 Nov;15(8):801-13 [PMID: 17943606]
  4. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2016 Mar 1;5(1):1-9 [PMID: 27042402]
  5. Memory. 2017 Sep;25(8):969-977 [PMID: 27710198]
  6. BMC Public Health. 2022 Jan 14;22(1):96 [PMID: 35031053]
  7. Psychol Bull. 1993 Jul;114(1):3-28 [PMID: 8346328]
  8. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1992 Nov;18(6):1298-309 [PMID: 1447553]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2019 Oct;30(10):1449-1459 [PMID: 31432746]
  10. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2022 Oct 04;: [PMID: 36250192]
  11. Memory. 2021 May;29(5):587-604 [PMID: 33971789]
  12. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2022 Oct 1;7(1):87 [PMID: 36183027]
  13. Trends Neurosci. 2012 Apr;35(4):211-9 [PMID: 22398180]
  14. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Dec 4;5(1):63 [PMID: 33275199]
  15. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2021 Dec;27(4):773-784 [PMID: 34110860]
  16. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020 Aug;35(8):775-779 [PMID: 32785815]
  17. Cogn Process. 2005 Dec;6(4):237-42 [PMID: 18239952]
  18. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006 Sep;12(3):179-95 [PMID: 16953744]
  19. Vaccine. 2012 May 28;30(25):3790-7 [PMID: 22133507]
  20. Science. 2007 Apr 6;316(5821):76-82 [PMID: 17412951]
  21. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2018 Dec;147(12):1865-1880 [PMID: 30247057]
  22. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2019 Feb;148(2):325-341 [PMID: 30394766]
  23. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):3-5 [PMID: 17362368]
  24. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 6;10(1):16598 [PMID: 33024152]
  25. Cureus. 2020 Mar 13;12(3):e7255 [PMID: 32292669]
  26. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 16;16(4):e0250123 [PMID: 33861765]
  27. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Oct;26(5):1705-1710 [PMID: 31420808]
  28. Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1094-1096 [PMID: 29590025]
  29. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2001 Mar;7(1):51-9 [PMID: 11577619]
  30. J Mem Lang. 2017 Jun;94:149-165 [PMID: 28579691]
  31. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):321-34 [PMID: 17352614]
  32. Psychol Sci. 2018 Mar;29(3):471-476 [PMID: 29315022]
  33. Psychon Bull Rev. 1995 Sep;2(3):387-90 [PMID: 24203720]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0newsvaccinememoriesitemsmisinformationfalsepre-existingtrueFalseeffectsopinionsStudyparticipantspro-anti-vaccineinformationMisinformationcontinuallythreatenseffortscontrolCOVID-19pandemicnowkeyconcerncaninfluencebehaviouralintentionsyetlittleknownfactorsaffectingvaccine-relatedAcrosstwoexperimentstotal = 1481paperexploresreported1 = 817exposedfabricatedaskedmemoryeventoccurred2 = 646viewedNewslikelyrememberedalignedparticipants'beliefsstrongerpro-vaccineconcludeencouragingresearchersconsiderroleattitudinalbiasdevelopinginterventionsreducesusceptibilityvaccinationformlineCOVID���19fake

Similar Articles

Cited By (4)