ArticleMemory & cognition2020
How prior testing impacts misinformation processing: A dual-task approach.
Article in Memory & cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research suggests that testing prior to the presentation of misinformation influences how that misinformation is processed. The present study examined the relationship between testing, the demands of misinformation narrative processing, and memory for original and post-event information. Using response latencies to a secondary task, we tested whether prior testing influenced the available resources for secondary task processing. Additionally, we investigated whether changes in narrative processing were specific to critical details tested earlier. Participants engaged in an eyewitness memory paradigm in which half were tested prior to receiving the post-event narrative. Participants responded to the secondary task at specified time points during the narrative. All participants took a final memory test after listening to the post-event narrative. We found that testing interacted with the placement of the secondary task. When responding on the secondary task was closely linked to the presentation of previously tested critical details in the narrative, retrieval-enhanced suggestibility was reduced on tests of event memory (Experiment 1) and increased post-event information learning was revealed on tests of narrative memory (Experiment 2).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31385240What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.