Research has consistently shown that misinformation can continue to affect inferential reasoning after a correction. This phenomenon is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Recent studies have demonstrated that CIE susceptibility can be predicted by individual differences in stable cognitive abilities. Based on this, it was reasoned that CIE susceptibility ought to have some degree of stability itself; however, this has never been tested. The current study aimed to investigate the temporal stability of retraction sensitivity, arguably a major determinant of CIE susceptibility. Participants were given parallel forms of a standard CIE task 4 weeks apart, and the association between testing points was assessed with an intra-class correlation coefficient and confirmatory factor analysis. Results suggested that retraction sensitivity is relatively stable and can be predicted as an individual-differences variable. These results encourage continued individual-differences research on the CIE and have implications for real-world CIE intervention.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2019). IBM SPSS Amos 26 user’s guide. IBM.
2.
AyersM. S.RederL. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209454
3.
BaadteC.DutkeS. (2013). Learning about persons: The effects of text structure and executive capacity on conceptual change. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 28(3), 1045–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-012-0153-2
4.
BasolM.RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS. (2020). Good news about bad news: Gamified inoculation boosts confidence and cognitive immunity against fake news. Journal of Cognition, 3(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.91
5.
BisharaA. J.HittnerJ. B. (2012). Testing the significance of a correlation with non-normal data: Comparison of Pearson, Spearman, transformation, and resampling approaches. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028087
6.
BlairI. V.LentonA. P.HastieR. (2002). The reliability of the DRM paradigm as a measure of individual differences in false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 590–596. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196317
7.
BonettoE.TroïanJ.VaretF.Lo MonacoG.GirandolaF. (2018). Priming resistance to persuasion decreases adherence to conspiracy theories. Social Influence, 13(3), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2018.1471415
8.
BoomsmaA.HooglandJ. J. (2001). The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 139–168). Scientific Software International. http://aboomsma.webhosting.rug.nl/csadata/boomsma_hoogland_2001.pdf
9.
BrydgesC. R.GignacG. E.EckerU. K. H. (2018). Working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, and the continued influence effect: A latent-variable analysis. Intelligence, 69, 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.009
10.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed.). Springer.
11.
CarusoJ. C. (2004). A comparison of the reliabilities of four types of difference scores for five cognitive assessment batteries. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 20(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.20.3.166
12.
ChanM. P. S.JonesC. R.Hall JamiesonK.AlbarracínD. (2017). Debunking: A meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579
13.
ChangE. P.EckerU. K. H.PageA. C. (2019). Not wallowing in misery—Retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination. Cognition and Emotion, 33(5), 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2018.1533808
14.
ClaytonK.BlairS.BusamJ. A.ForstnerS.GlanceJ.GreenG.KawataA.KovvuriA.MartinJ.MorganE.SandhuM.SangR.Scholz-BrightR.WelchA. T.WolffA. G.ZhouA.NyhanB. (2019). Real solutions for fake news? Measuring the effectiveness of general warnings and fact-check tags in reducing belief in false stories on social media. Political Behavior, 42, 1073–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09533-0
15.
CookJ. (2017). Understanding and countering climate science denial. Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 150(465–466), 207–219.
16.
CookJ.BedfordD.MandiaS. (2014). Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: Case studies in agnotology-based learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 296–306. https://doi.org/10.5408/13-071.1
17.
CookJ.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLOS ONE, 12(5), Article e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
18.
CronbachL. J.FurbyL. (1970). How we should measure “change”: Or should we?Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029382
19.
De keersmaeckerJ.RoetsA. (2017). “Fake news”: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence, 65, 107–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005
20.
EckerU. K. H.AngL. C. (2019). Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychology, 40(2), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12494
21.
EckerU. K. H.AntonioL. M. (2020). Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qt4w8
22.
EckerU. K. H.HoganJ. L.LewandowskyS. (2017). Reminders and repetition of misinformation: Helping or hindering its retraction?Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014
23.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.ApaiJ. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane! No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(2), 283–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.497927
24.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.ChangE. P.PillaiR. (2014). The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 323–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000028
25.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.FentonO.MartinK. (2014). Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0358-x
26.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.SwireB.ChangD. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 570–578. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1
27.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.TangD. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1087–1100. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.38.8.1087
28.
EckerU. K. H.SzeB. K.AndreottaM. (2021). Corrections of political misinformation: No evidence for an effect of partisan worldview in a U.S. convenience sample. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 376(1822), 20200145. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0145
29.
EnkaviA. Z.EisenbergI. W.BissettP. G.MazzaG. L.MacKinnonD. P.MarschL. A.PoldrackR. A. (2019). Large-scale analysis of test–retest reliabilities of self-regulation measures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(12), 5472–5477. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818430116
30.
ForgasJ. P.EastR. (2008). On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1362–1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010
31.
FrancoA.MalhotraN.SimonovitsG. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484
32.
GignacG. E. (2007). Multi-factor modeling in individual differences research: Some recommendations and suggestions. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.019
33.
GignacG. E. (2014). On the inappropriateness of using items to calculate total scale score reliability via coefficient alpha for multidimensional scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000181
34.
GordonA.BrooksJ. C. W.QuadfliegS.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS. (2017). Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing. Neuropsychologia, 106, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.10.003
35.
GordonA.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS. (2019). Polarity and attitude effects in the continued-influence paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 108, 104028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104028
36.
GuilloryJ. J.GeraciL. (2013). Correcting erroneous inferences in memory: The role of source credibility. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(4), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.10.001
37.
HedgeC.PowellG.SumnerP. (2018). The reliability paradox: Why robust cognitive tasks do not produce reliable individual differences. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1166–1186. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0935-1
38.
HeymanT.BruninxA.HutchisonK. A.StormsG. (2018). The (un) reliability of item-level semantic priming effects. Behavior Research Methods, 50(6), 2173–2183. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1040-9
39.
HinzeS. R.SlatenD. G.HortonW. S.JenkinsR.RappD. N. (2014). Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0359-9
40.
HoaglinD. C.IglewiczB. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147–1149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289392
JohnsonH. M.SeifertC. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420–1436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
KendeouP.WalshE. K.SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51(5–6), 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.913961
45.
KooT. K.LiM. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
46.
LewandowskyS.CookJ.EckerU. K. H.AlbarracínD.AmazeenM. A.KendeouP.LombardiD.NewmanE. J.PennycookG.PorterE.RandD. G.RappD. N.ReiflerJ.RoozenbeekJ.SchmidP.SeifertC. M.SinatraG. M.Swire-ThompsonB.van der LindenS.ZaragozaM. S. (2020). The debunking handbook 2020. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182
47.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
48.
LewandowskyS.StritzkeW. G. K.OberauerK.MoralesM. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16(3), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x
49.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
50.
LombardiD.DanielsonR. W.YoungN. (2016). A plausible connection: Models examining the relations between evaluation, plausibility, and the refutation text effect. Learning and Instruction, 44, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.03.003
51.
MaertensR.AnseelF.van der LindenS. (2020). Combatting climate change misinformation: Evidence for longevity of inoculation and consensus messaging effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 70, 101455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101455
52.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
53.
NunnallyJ. C. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. McGraw-Hill.
54.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
55.
OsborneJ. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944
56.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063
57.
RappD. N.HinzeS. R.KohlheppK.RyskinR. A. (2014). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0339-0
58.
RappD. N.KendeouP. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35(8), 2019–2032. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192934
59.
RichP. R.ZaragozaM. S. (2016). The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000155
60.
RoozenbeekJ.van der LindenS. (2019). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 22(5), 570–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491
61.
SandersonJ. A.GignacG. E.EckerU. K. (2021). Working memory capacity, removal efficiency and event specific memory as predictors of misinformation reliance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 33, 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2021.1931243
62.
SchweizerK. (2010). Some guidelines concerning the modeling of traits and abilities in test construction. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000001
63.
SeifertC. M. (2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective?Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(02)80009-3
64.
SinghK. A.GignacG. E.BrydgesC. R.EckerU. K. H. (2018). Working memory capacity mediates the relationship between removal and fluid intelligence. Journal of Memory and Language, 101, 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2018.03.002
65.
SwireB.BerinskyA. J.LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H. (2017). Processing political misinformation: Comprehending the Trump phenomenon. Royal Society Open Science, 4(3), 160802. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160802
66.
SwireB.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1948–1961. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
67.
Swire-ThompsonB.DeGutisJ.LazerD. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006
68.
Swire-ThompsonB.EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.BerinskyA. J. (2020). They might be a liar but they’re my liar: Source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychology, 41(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12586
69.
TaylorL. E.SwerdfegerA. L.EslickG. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: An evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623–3629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.04.085
70.
ThomasD. R.ZumboB. D. (2012). Difference scores from the point of view of reliability and repeated-measures ANOVA: In defense of difference scores for data analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(1), 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164411409929
71.
TomarkenA. J.WallerN. G. (2003). Potential problems with “well fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 578–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.578
TrevorsG.KendeouP. (2020). The effects of positive and negative emotional text content on knowledge revision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1326–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820913816
74.
TsfatiY.BoomgaardenH. G.StrömbäckJ.VliegenthartR.DamstraA.LindgrenE. (2020). Causes and consequences of mainstream media dissemination of fake news: Literature review and synthesis. Annals of the International Communication Association, 44(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443
75.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
WalterN.MurphyS. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85(3), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1467564
78.
WalterN.TukachinskyR. (2020). A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it?Communication Research, 47(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600
79.
WangY.McKeeM.TorbicaA.StucklerD. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
80.
WilkesA. L.LeatherbarrowM. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724988843000168
81.
WoodT.PorterE. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
