Listening to Misinformation while Driving: Cognitive Load and the Effectiveness of (Repeated) Corrections.

Jasmyne A Sanderson, Vanessa Bowden, Briony Swire-Thompson, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ullrich K H Ecker
Author Information
  1. Jasmyne A Sanderson: School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Australia.
  2. Vanessa Bowden: School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Australia.
  3. Briony Swire-Thompson: Network Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
  4. Stephan Lewandowsky: School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  5. Ullrich K H Ecker: School of Psychological Science, The University of Western Australia, Australia.

Abstract

Corrected misinformation can continue to influence inferential reasoning. It has been suggested that such continued influence is partially driven by misinformation familiarity, and that corrections should therefore avoid repeating misinformation to avoid inadvertent strengthening of misconceptions. However, evidence for such familiarity-backfire effects is scarce. We tested whether familiarity backfire may occur if corrections are processed under cognitive load. Although misinformation repetition may boost familiarity, load may impede integration of the correction, reducing its effectiveness and therefore allowing a backfire effect to emerge. Participants listened to corrections that repeated misinformation while in a driving simulator. Misinformation familiarity was manipulated through the number of corrections. Load was manipulated through a math task administered selectively during correction encoding. Multiple corrections were more effective than a single correction; cognitive load reduced correction effectiveness, with a single correction entirely ineffective under load. This provides further evidence against familiarity-backfire effects and has implications for real-world debunking.

Keywords

References

  1. Mem Cognit. 2019 Jan;47(1):33-46 [PMID: 30117115]
  2. Mem Cognit. 2010 Dec;38(8):1087-100 [PMID: 21156872]
  3. PLoS One. 2017 Jul 27;12(7):e0181640 [PMID: 28749996]
  4. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):570-8 [PMID: 21359617]
  5. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2023 Sep;12(3):325-334 [PMID: 37829768]
  6. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Dec;43(12):1948-1961 [PMID: 28504531]
  7. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2014 Dec;20(4):323-35 [PMID: 25347407]
  8. Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1094-1096 [PMID: 29590025]
  9. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Sep;92(3):381-7 [PMID: 23891420]
  10. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1993 Aug;65(2):221-33 [PMID: 8366418]
  11. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Aug 26;5(1):41 [PMID: 32844338]
  12. Accid Anal Prev. 2019 Mar;124:23-32 [PMID: 30610996]
  13. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 30;14(1):e0210746 [PMID: 30699155]
  14. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012 Dec;13(3):106-31 [PMID: 26173286]
  15. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Nov;106:216-224 [PMID: 28987910]
  16. Pediatrics. 2014 Apr;133(4):e835-42 [PMID: 24590751]
  17. Psychol Sci. 2020 Oct;31(10):1325-1339 [PMID: 32976064]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 2;370(1):54-9 [PMID: 24382065]
  19. Accid Anal Prev. 2007 Mar;39(2):372-9 [PMID: 17054894]
  20. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Jun;129(2):155-76 [PMID: 10868332]
  21. Br J Psychol. 2020 Feb;111(1):36-54 [PMID: 30825195]
  22. Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;28(11):1531-1546 [PMID: 28895452]
  23. J Mem Lang. 2013 Apr;68(3): [PMID: 24403724]
  24. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1996 Jun;125(2):159-80 [PMID: 8683192]
  25. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2020 Sep;9(3):286-299 [PMID: 32905023]
  26. Mem Cognit. 2007 Dec;35(8):2019-32 [PMID: 18265617]
  27. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Jul;151(7):1655-1665 [PMID: 35130012]
  28. Behav Res Methods. 2012 Dec;44(4):1255-65 [PMID: 22437511]
  29. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1483-98 [PMID: 11185778]
  30. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2016 Jan;42(1):62-74 [PMID: 26147670]

Grants

  1. 101020961/European Research Council

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0familiaritymisinformationcorrectionsloadcorrectioninfluencebackfiremaycognitiveeffectMisinformationcontinuedthereforeavoidevidencefamiliarity-backfireeffectseffectivenessmanipulatedLoadsingleCorrectedcancontinueinferentialreasoningsuggestedpartiallydrivenrepeatinginadvertentstrengtheningmisconceptionsHoweverscarcetestedwhetheroccurprocessedAlthoughrepetitionboostimpedeintegrationreducingallowingemergeParticipantslistenedrepeateddrivingsimulatornumbermathtaskadministeredselectivelyencodingMultipleeffectivereducedentirelyineffectiveprovidesimplicationsreal-worlddebunkingListeningDriving:CognitiveEffectivenessRepeatedCorrections

Similar Articles

Cited By