Don't believe them! Reducing misinformation influence through source discreditation.

Ullrich K H Ecker, Toby Prike, Antonia B Paver, Rosie J Scott, Briony Swire-Thompson
Author Information
  1. Ullrich K H Ecker: School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia (M304), Perth, 6009, Australia. ullrich.ecker@uwa.edu.au. ORCID
  2. Toby Prike: School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia (M304), Perth, 6009, Australia. ORCID
  3. Antonia B Paver: School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia (M304), Perth, 6009, Australia.
  4. Rosie J Scott: School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia (M304), Perth, 6009, Australia.
  5. Briony Swire-Thompson: College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Northeastern University, Boston, USA. ORCID

Abstract

Misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people's subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure.

Keywords

References

  1. Br J Psychol. 2022 Aug;113(3):591-607 [PMID: 34967004]
  2. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Mar;5(3):337-348 [PMID: 33547453]
  3. Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;28(11):1531-1546 [PMID: 28895452]
  4. Mem Cognit. 2023 May;51(4):845-861 [PMID: 36460863]
  5. Mem Cognit. 2023 Feb;51(2):422-436 [PMID: 36125658]
  6. Vaccine. 2010 Mar 11;28(12):2361-2 [PMID: 20199766]
  7. Nat Hum Behav. 2023 Sep;7(9):1514-1525 [PMID: 37322236]
  8. PLoS One. 2017 May 5;12(5):e0175799 [PMID: 28475576]
  9. Nature. 2024 Jun;630(8015):29-32 [PMID: 38840026]
  10. Cognition. 2020 Dec;205:104453 [PMID: 33011527]
  11. Curr Opin Psychol. 2023 Dec;54:101711 [PMID: 37944324]
  12. Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):189-209 [PMID: 8039361]
  13. R Soc Open Sci. 2017 Mar 1;4(3):160802 [PMID: 28405366]
  14. PLoS One. 2019 Jan 30;14(1):e0210746 [PMID: 30699155]
  15. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2012 Dec;13(3):106-31 [PMID: 26173286]
  16. Health Commun. 2020 May;35(5):560-575 [PMID: 30761917]
  17. Mem Cognit. 2014 Feb;42(2):305-24 [PMID: 24005790]
  18. Psychol Sci. 2020 Jul;31(7):770-780 [PMID: 32603243]
  19. Mem Cognit. 2023 Aug;51(6):1317-1330 [PMID: 36988856]
  20. Science. 1990 Jan 5;247(4938):44-8 [PMID: 2403694]
  21. Psychol Sci. 2005 Mar;16(3):190-5 [PMID: 15733198]
  22. Mem Cognit. 2010 Dec;38(8):1087-100 [PMID: 21156872]
  23. Mem Cognit. 2021 May;49(4):631-644 [PMID: 33452666]
  24. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2020 Sep;9(3):286-299 [PMID: 32905023]
  25. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020 Apr 2;41:433-451 [PMID: 31874069]
  26. Curr Opin Psychol. 2023 Dec;54:101712 [PMID: 37944323]
  27. Cognition. 2023 Jan;230:105276 [PMID: 36174261]
  28. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2023 May;49(5):744-757 [PMID: 35227114]
  29. J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2021 Jun;10(2):248-258 [PMID: 33391983]
  30. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Nov 11;5(1):56 [PMID: 33175284]
  31. Nature. 2010 Jun 10;465(7299):686-7 [PMID: 20535183]
  32. Glob Chall. 2017 Jan 23;1(2):1600008 [PMID: 31565263]
  33. Mem Cognit. 2022 Feb;50(2):435-448 [PMID: 34533754]
  34. Sci Adv. 2022 May 6;8(18):eabl3844 [PMID: 35522751]
  35. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91 [PMID: 17695343]
  36. Soc Sci Med. 2023 May;324:115863 [PMID: 37030097]
  37. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 30;13(1):e0192025 [PMID: 29381757]
  38. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2023 Jul 3;8(1):39 [PMID: 37395864]
  39. Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 22;14(1):6900 [PMID: 38519569]
  40. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 12;116(7):2521-2526 [PMID: 30692252]
  41. J Pers. 2020 Apr;88(2):185-200 [PMID: 30929263]
  42. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Dec;15(6):1166-73 [PMID: 19001585]
  43. Mem Cognit. 2020 Jan;48(1):127-144 [PMID: 31317393]

Grants

  1. R00 CA248720/NCI NIH HHS
  2. R00CA248720/NIH HHS
  3. FT190100708/Australian Research Council

MeSH Term

Humans
Communication
Adult
Male
Female
Young Adult
Deception
Conflict of Interest

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0misinformationsourcediscreditationeffectiveinfluencepersoncomparedcorrectionMisinformationpeople'stestedExperimenttargetedpointingconflictinterestcombinationlessdiscreditationsmediaoftencontinuesreasoningevencorrectedThereforeimportantaimappliedcognitionresearchidentifymeasurescounterOnefrequentlyrecommendedhithertoinsufficientlystrategyattackingcredibilitytwoexperimentswhetherimmediatereducesubsequentreliancefictionalevent-related1interventioncommonlyemployedmessage-focusedalone2versuseitherpoortrackrecordcommunicationDiscreditationstypessourcesalthoughtrack-recordoutletResultsdemonstratecontinuedshapedsocialwellcognitivefactorsbroadlyapplicablecountermeasurebelievethem!ReducingContinuedeffectDebunkingDerogationDisinformationSource

Similar Articles

Cited By