Can’t We Just Disregard Fake News? The Consequences of Exposure to Inaccurate Information

Abstract

People routinely encounter inaccurate information, from fake news designed to confuse audiences, to communications with inadvertent mistakes, to stories made up to entertain readers. The hope is that these inaccuracies can be easily ignored, exerting little influence on our thoughts and actions. Unfortunately, being exposed to inaccuracies leads to problematic consequences. After reading inaccurate statements, readers exhibit clear effects of those contents on their decisions and problem-solving. This occurs even when readers possess appropriate prior knowledge to evaluate and reject the inaccuracies. Exposure to inaccurate information leads to confusion about what is true, doubt about accurate understandings, and subsequent reliance on falsehoods. Interventions and technologies designed to address these effects by encouraging critical evaluation can support effective comprehension and learning.

Keywords

memory comprehension reading fake news misinformation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrews

J. J.

Rapp

D. N.

(2014). Partner characteristics and social contagion: Does group composition matter? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 505-517.

Appel

Richter

(2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10, 113-134.

Braasch

J. L. G.

Bråten

(2017). The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52, 167-181.

Bulevich

J. B.

Thomas

A. K.

(2012). Retrieval effort improves memory and metamemory in the face of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 45-58.

Del Vicario

Bessi

Zollo

Petroni

Scala

Caldarelli

. . . Quattrociocchi

. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 554-559.

Donovan

A. M.

Hinze

S. R.

Rapp

D. N.

(2017, April). People utilize inaccurate information even when allowed to withhold responses. Poster presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Donovan

A. M.

Zhan

Rapp

D. N.

(2018). Supporting historical understandings with refutation texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 1-11.

Dunning

Johnson

Ehrlinger

Kruger

(2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 83-87.

Fazio

L. K.

Barber

S. J.

Rajaram

Ornstein

P. A.

Marsh

E. J.

(2013). Creating illusions of knowledge: Learning errors that contradict prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1-5.

10.

Fazio

L. K.

Dolan

P. O.

Marsh

E. J.

(2015). Learning misinformation from fictional sources: Understanding the contributions of transportation and item-specific processing. Memory, 23, 167-177.

11.

Gerrig

R. J.

Prentice

D. A.

(1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2, 336-340.

12.

Graesser

A. C.

Britt

M. A.

Millis

K. K.

Wallace

Halpern

D. F.

Cai

. . . Forsyth

(2010). Critiquing media reports with flawed scientific findings: Operation ARIES! A game with animated agents and natural language trialogues. In Aleven

Kay

Mostow

(Eds.), Intelligent Tutoring Systems: ITS 2010: Lecture notes in computer science (Vol. 6095, pp. 327-329). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

13.

Greene

J. A.

S. B.

(2016). Educating critical thinkers: The role of epistemic cognition. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 45-53.

14.

Hinze

S. R.

Slaten

D. G.

Horton

W. S.

Jenkins

R. J.

Rapp

D. N.

(2014). Pilgrims sailing the titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42, 305-324.

15.

Jacovina

M. E.

Hinze

S. R.

Rapp

D. N.

(2014). Fool me twice: The consequences of reading (and rereading) inaccurate information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 558-568.

16.

Johnson

H. M.

Seifert

C. M.

(1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.

17.

Johnson

H. M.

Seifert

C. M.

(1998). Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 24, 1483-1494.

18.

Johnson

M. K.

Hashtroudi

Lindsay

S. D.

(1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.

19.

Kendeou

O’Brien

E. J.

(2014). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In Rapp

D. N.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353-377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

20.

Kendeou

van den Broek

(2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567-1577.

21.

Lazer

D. M. J.

Baum

M. A.

Benkler

Berinsky

A. J.

Greenhill

K. M.

Menczer

. . . Zittrain

J. L.

(2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359, 1094-1096.

22.

Lewandowsky

Ecker

U. K. H.

Seifert

C. M.

Schwarz

Cook

(2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131.

23.

Mar

R. A.

(in press). Evaluating whether stories can promote social cognition: Introducing the Social Processes and Content Entrained by Narrative (SPaCEN) framework. Discourse Processes.

24.

Marsh

E. J.

(2004). Stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 650-655.

25.

Marsh

E. J.

Cantor

A. D.

Brashier

N. M.

(2016). Believing that humans swallow spiders in their sleep: False beliefs as side effects of the processes that support accurate knowledge. In Ross

(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 64, pp. 93-132). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.

26.

Marsh

E. J.

Fazio

L. K.

(2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140-1149.

27.

Marsh

E. J.

Meade

M. L.

Roediger

H. L.

(2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 519-536.

28.

Otero

Kintsch

(1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-236.

29.

Pennycook

Cannon

T. D.

Rand

D. G.

(in press). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

30.

Prentice

D. A.

Gerrig

R. J.

Bailis

D. S.

(1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416-420.

31.

Rapp

D. N.

(2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36, 688-701.

32.

Rapp

D. N.

(2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 281-285.

33.

Rapp

D. N.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(2014). Accurate and inaccurate knowledge acquisition. In Rapp

D. N.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 1-9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

34.

Rapp

D. N.

Donovan

A. M.

(2017). Routine processes of cognition result in routine influences of inaccurate content. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 409-413.

35.

Rapp

D. N.

Gerrig

R. J.

Prentice

D. A.

(2001). Readers’ trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 737-750.

36.

Rapp

D. N.

Hinze

S. R.

Kohlhepp

Ryskin

R. A.

(2014). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory & Cognition, 42, 11-26.

37.

Rapp

D. N.

Jacovina

M. E.

Andrews

J. J.

(2014). Mechanisms of problematic knowledge acquisition. In Rapp

D. N.

Braasch

J. L. G.

(Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 181-202). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

38.

Rapp

D. N.

Mensink

M. C.

(2011). Focusing effects from online and offline reading tasks. In McCrudden

M. T.

Magliano

J. P.

Schraw

(Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 141-164). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

39.

Rich

P. R.

Zaragoza

M. S.

(2016). The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 42, 62-74.

40.

Roediger

H. L.

Meade

M. L.

Bergman

E. T.

(2001). Social contagion of memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 365-371.

41.

Salovich

N. A.

Rapp

D. N.

(2018, July). Readers’ perceived resistance to misinformation is inversely related to their use of inaccurate content. Paper to be presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse, Brighton, UK.

42.

Seifert

C. M.

(2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 41, 265-292.

43.

Vosoughi

Roy

Aral

(2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359, 1146-1151.

44.

Weinstein

McDermott

K. B.

Chan

J. C. K.

(2010). True and false memories in the DRM paradigm on a forced choice test. Memory, 4, 375-384.

45.

Wheeler

S. C.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(1999). Fictional narratives change beliefs: Replications of Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis (1997) with mixed corroboration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 136-141.

46.

Wilkes

A. L.

Leatherbarrow

(1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40, 361-387.

47.

Wilkes

A. L.

Reynolds

D. J.

(1999). On certain limitations accompanying readers’ interpretations of corrections in episodic text. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 52, 165-183.