Conceptual contamination: Investigating the impact of misinformation on conceptual change and inoculation strategies

Abstract

Misinformation has been extensively studied as both maliciously intended propaganda and accidentally experienced incorrect assumptions. We contend that “conceptual contamination” is the process by which the learning of incorrect information interferes, pollutes, or otherwise disrupts the learning of correct information. This is similar to a medical model of disease transmission wherein misinformation travels from person to person via multiple methods. And just as we can inoculate the public against diseases like smallpox or measles, we suggest this same approach (providing refutations to misconceptions that individuals may not have read yet) can inoculate the public from misconceptions. We sought to examine whether we could inoculate against misconceptions, and if so, would a refutation text outperform a more traditional expository text. We also sought to examine the role of emotions and attitudes. We randomly assigned 152 undergraduate students to one of four experimental conditions comparing both text type (refutation vs. expository) and text order (misconception first or second) on their ability to overcome misconceptions. Our findings indicate that reading refutation texts led to significantly fewer misconceptions and reduced negative emotions. We also illustrate that the prevailing approach to countering misinformation—providing expository support after exposure to misinformation—performed the worst overall. Our findings suggest that refutation texts continue to provide significant reductions in misconceptions, and that overall misconceptions can be reduced regardless of text type, if the correct information can precede misinformation.