Correcting fake news headlines after repeated exposure: memory and belief accuracy in younger and older adults.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1186/s41235-024-00585-3
Paige L Kemp, Vanessa M Loaiza, Colleen M Kelley, Christopher N Wahlheim
{"title":"Correcting fake news headlines after repeated exposure: memory and belief accuracy in younger and older adults.","authors":"Paige L Kemp, Vanessa M Loaiza, Colleen M Kelley, Christopher N Wahlheim","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00585-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The efficacy of fake news corrections in improving memory and belief accuracy may depend on how often adults see false information before it is corrected. Two experiments tested the competing predictions that repeating fake news before corrections will either impair or improve memory and belief accuracy. These experiments also examined whether fake news exposure effects would differ for younger and older adults due to age-related differences in the recollection of contextual details. Younger and older adults read real and fake news headlines that appeared once or thrice. Next, they identified fake news corrections among real news headlines. Later, recognition and cued recall tests assessed memory for real news, fake news, if corrections occurred, and beliefs in retrieved details. Repeating fake news increased detection and remembering of corrections, correct real news retrieval, and erroneous fake news retrieval. No age differences emerged for detection of corrections, but younger adults remembered corrections better than older adults. At test, correct fake news retrieval for earlier-detected corrections was associated with better real news retrieval. This benefit did not differ between age groups in recognition but was greater for younger than older adults in cued recall. When detected corrections were not remembered at test, repeated fake news increased memory errors. Overall, both age groups believed correctly retrieved real news more than erroneously retrieved fake news to a similar degree. These findings suggest that fake news repetition effects on subsequent memory accuracy depended on age differences in recollection-based retrieval of fake news and that it was corrected.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"55"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11345346/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00585-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficacy of fake news corrections in improving memory and belief accuracy may depend on how often adults see false information before it is corrected. Two experiments tested the competing predictions that repeating fake news before corrections will either impair or improve memory and belief accuracy. These experiments also examined whether fake news exposure effects would differ for younger and older adults due to age-related differences in the recollection of contextual details. Younger and older adults read real and fake news headlines that appeared once or thrice. Next, they identified fake news corrections among real news headlines. Later, recognition and cued recall tests assessed memory for real news, fake news, if corrections occurred, and beliefs in retrieved details. Repeating fake news increased detection and remembering of corrections, correct real news retrieval, and erroneous fake news retrieval. No age differences emerged for detection of corrections, but younger adults remembered corrections better than older adults. At test, correct fake news retrieval for earlier-detected corrections was associated with better real news retrieval. This benefit did not differ between age groups in recognition but was greater for younger than older adults in cued recall. When detected corrections were not remembered at test, repeated fake news increased memory errors. Overall, both age groups believed correctly retrieved real news more than erroneously retrieved fake news to a similar degree. These findings suggest that fake news repetition effects on subsequent memory accuracy depended on age differences in recollection-based retrieval of fake news and that it was corrected.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反复接触后纠正假新闻标题:年轻人和老年人的记忆和信念准确性。
假新闻更正在改善记忆和信念准确性方面的效果可能取决于成年人在假新闻更正之前看到假消息的频率。有两个实验测试了相互竞争的预测,即在更正前重复假新闻会损害或改善记忆和信念的准确性。这些实验还检验了年轻人和老年人接触假新闻的效果是否会因年龄相关的上下文细节回忆差异而不同。年轻人和老年人阅读了一次或三次出现的真假新闻标题。接下来,他们在真实新闻标题中识别出假新闻更正。随后,识别和提示回忆测试评估了对真实新闻、假新闻、是否出现更正以及对检索到的细节的信念的记忆。重复假新闻增加了对更正的检测和记忆、正确的真实新闻检索和错误的假新闻检索。在发现更正方面没有出现年龄差异,但年轻人对更正的记忆好于老年人。在测试中,对早期发现的更正进行正确的假新闻检索与更好的真实新闻检索相关。这种益处在不同年龄组的识别中没有差异,但在诱导回忆中,年轻成人的益处大于老年人。如果在测试时没有记住检测到的更正,重复假新闻会增加记忆错误。总体而言,两个年龄组的人对正确检索到的真实新闻的相信程度都高于错误检索到的假新闻。这些研究结果表明,假新闻重复对后续记忆准确性的影响取决于基于回忆的假新闻检索的年龄差异以及假新闻被纠正的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
Delay discounting predicts COVID-19 vaccine booster willingness. Emotions in misinformation studies: distinguishing affective state from emotional response and misinformation recognition from acceptance. Acquiring complex concepts through classification versus observation. The roles of cognitive dissonance and normative reasoning in attributions of minds to robots. Older adults' recognition of medical terminology in hospital noise.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1