Swire Briony, Ecker Ullrich K H, Lewandowsky Stephan
School of Psychology, University of Western Australia.
School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Dec;43(12):1948-1961. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000422. Epub 2017 May 15.
People frequently continue to use inaccurate information in their reasoning even after a credible retraction has been presented. This phenomenon is often referred to as the continued influence effect of misinformation. The repetition of the original misconception within a retraction could contribute to this phenomenon, as it could inadvertently make the "myth" more familiar-and familiar information is more likely to be accepted as true. From a dual-process perspective, familiarity-based acceptance of myths is most likely to occur in the absence of strategic memory processes. Thus, we examined factors known to affect whether strategic memory processes can be utilized: age, detail, and time. Participants rated their belief in various statements of unclear veracity, and facts were subsequently affirmed and myths were retracted. Participants then rerated their belief either immediately or after a delay. We compared groups of young and older participants, and we manipulated the amount of detail presented in the affirmative or corrective explanations, as well as the retention interval between encoding and a retrieval attempt. We found that (a) older adults over the age of 65 were worse at sustaining their postcorrection belief that myths were inaccurate, (b) a greater level of explanatory detail promoted more sustained belief change, and (c) fact affirmations promoted more sustained belief change in comparison with myth retractions over the course of 1 week (but not over 3 weeks), This supports the notion that familiarity is indeed a driver of continued influence effects. (PsycINFO Database Record
即使在出现可靠的辟谣信息之后，人们在推理过程中仍经常继续使用不准确的信息。这种现象通常被称为错误信息的持续影响效应。辟谣内容中对原始错误观念的重复可能会导致这种现象，因为它可能会无意中使“谣言”变得更加熟悉——而熟悉的信息更有可能被当作真实的接受。从双加工理论的角度来看，基于熟悉度对谣言的接受最有可能在缺乏策略性记忆过程的情况下发生。因此，我们研究了已知会影响是否能运用策略性记忆过程的因素：年龄、细节和时间。参与者对各种真实性不明的陈述表达了自己的信念，随后事实得到了确认，谣言也被辟谣。参与者随后立即或在延迟后重新评估了他们的信念。我们比较了年轻和年长参与者组，并操纵了肯定性或纠正性解释中呈现的细节量，以及编码和检索尝试之间的保留间隔。我们发现：（a）65岁以上的老年人在维持纠正后认为谣言不准确的信念方面表现较差；（b）更高水平的解释细节促进了更持久的信念改变；（c）与谣言辟谣相比，在1周的时间里（但不是3周），事实确认促进了更持久的信念改变。这支持了熟悉度确实是持续影响效应驱动因素的观点。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》 ）
