Misinformation can have a detrimental impact on our beliefs, and it is therefore necessary to understand the cognitive mechanism by which false information is integrated or can be changed. In two experiments, we worked with fake psychic demonstrations, because observers easily adopt the experience as reflecting a “true” psychic event. We manipulated the availability of alternative explanations by providing a general warning that the performer is a magician with no psychic abilities (Experiment 1) or disclosing afterwards how the fake demonstration had been staged (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, witnessing the psychic demonstration significantly increased participants’ psychic beliefs, even though they had been warned. However, providing the alternative explanation about the deceptive method mitigated this effect. In Experiment 2, the realisation of deception significantly reduced participants’ psychic beliefs directly after the performance and remained reduced 1 week later.
BenassiV. A.SingerB.ReynoldsC. B. (1980). Occult Belief - Seeing Is Believing. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19(4), 337–349.
2.
BraddockK.DillardJ. P. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555
ChambersK. L.ZaragozaM. S. (2001). Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests. Memory & Cognition, 29(8), 1120–1129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206381
5.
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.
6.
EchterhoffG.HirstW.HussyW. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 770–782. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193073
7.
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
FeinS.McCloskeyA. L.TomlinsonT. M. (1997). Can the Jury Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311008
10.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
11.
GilbertD. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.
12.
HartmanS. E. (1999). Another view of the Paranormal Belief Scale. Journal of Parapsychology, 63(2), 131–141.
13.
JeritJ. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-007-9041-x
14.
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.
15.
KuhnG. (2019). Experiencing the impossible: The science of magic. MIT Press.
16.
LanY.MohrC.HuX.KuhnG. (2018). Fake science: The impact of pseudo-psychological demonstrations on people’s beliefs in psychological principles. PLoS ONE, 13(11), Article e0207629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207629
17.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.. . . ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
18.
LesaffreL.KuhnG.Abu-AkelA.RochatD.MohrC. (2018). Magic performances—When explained in psychic terms by university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02129
19.
LesaffreL.KuhnG.JoppD. S.MantzouranisG.DioufC. N.RochatD.MohrC. (2021). Talking to the dead in the classroom: How a supposedly psychic event impacts beliefs and feelings. Psychological Reports, 124(6), 2427-2452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120961068
20.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.CookJ. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008
21.
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
22.
MarcuseF. L.BittermanM. E. (1944). A classroom demonstration of “psychical phenomena.”The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 39(2), 238–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0053727
23.
MarksD. F. (2000). The psychology of the psychic. Prometheus Books.
24.
MarshE. J.FazioL. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1140–1149. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193260
McCabeD. P.SmithA. D. (2002). The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 30(7), 1065–1077. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194324
27.
MikaW. (2019). The emergence of deepfake technology: A review. Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(11), 39–52.
28.
MohrC.KoutrakisN.KuhnG. (2015). Priming psychic and conjuring abilities of a magic demonstration influences event interpretation and random number generation biases. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1542. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01542
29.
MohrC.KuhnG. (2020). Magicians read your mind—What does it tell us about the human mind? In KassungC.SchlichtL.SeemannC. (Eds.), Mind reading as a cultural practice (pp. 93–106). Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
MohrC.LesaffreL.KuhnG. (2019). Magical potential: Why magic performances should be used to explore the psychological factors contributing to human belief formation. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 53, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9459-1
31.
NickersonR. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
32.
SchwartzB. S.ParkerC. L.HessJ.FrumkinH. (2011). Public health and medicine in an age of energy scarcity: The case of petroleum. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1560–1567.
33.
SchwarzN. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 123–162). Elsevier.
34.
SchwarzN.SannaL. J.SkurnikI.YoonC. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 127–161). Academic Press.
35.
SnyderC. R.ShcnkelR. J. (1976). Effects of “favorability,” modality, and relevance upon acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 44–34.
36.
TobackyJ. J. (2004). A Revised Paranormal Belief Scale. The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23, 94–98.
37.
WilkesA. L.LeatherbarrowM. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(2), 361–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724988843000168
38.
WyerR. S. (1975). Cognitive organization and change. Psychology Press.
