ArticlePloS one2020
Effective forewarning requires central route processing: Theoretical improvements on the counterargumentation hypothesis and practical implications for scam prevention.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Financial scams have caused tremendous financial damage globally. In Japan, the police forewarn people by equipping them with scam-prevention techniques or providing awareness regarding examples of previous scams; however, this does not appear to effectively prevent the damage, as many scam victims do not remember these warnings when faced with actual scam encounters. Considering that scammers often use appeal to emotion techniques, peripheral processing during scam attempts might disturb people's abilities to recall the warnings on scammers' modus operandi, thus leading to failed counter-arguing efforts. We verified this hypothesis in an experimental setting by asking 162 participants to remember given forewarnings and resist deceptive advertisements. The results showed that participants gave the advertisers' manipulative intent a higher rating only when they processed the advertisement through a central route, in addition to being forewarned. This means that forewarning had no effect when participants processed the advertisement through a peripheral route. Moreover, forewarning recollection levels mediated the effect of processing route on this rating, which suggests that remembering forewarnings is necessary to generate counterarguments. This result expands the theory on forewarning effects and explains why people are susceptible to scam victimization. Furthermore, it provides implications for scam prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.