Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36174261›Full record

Trial reportCognition2023

Memory failure predicts belief regression after the correction of misinformation.

Briony Swire-Thompson, Mitch Dobbs, Ayanna Thomas, Joseph DeGutis

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cognition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Examining the replicability of backfire effects after standalone corrections.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Briony Swire-ThompsonNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, USA; Institute of Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA. Electronic address: b.swire-thompson@northeastern.edu.
Mitch DobbsNetwork Science Institute, Northeastern University, Boston, USA.
Ayanna ThomasDepartment of Psychology, Tufts University, Cambridge, USA.
Joseph DeGutisBoston Attention and Learning Laboratory, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Cancer misinformation on social media and its correctionK99CA248720 · NCI · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SWIRE-THOMPSON, BRIONY · 2021 to 2022
$308k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA248720
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After misinformation has been corrected, people initially update their belief extremely well. However, this change is rarely sustained over time, with belief returning towards pre-correction levels. This is called belief regression. The current study aimed to examine the association between memory for the correction and belief regression, and whether corrected misinformation suffers from belief regression more than affirmed facts. Participants from Prolific Academic (N = 612) rated the veracity of 16 misinformation and 16 factual items and were randomly assigned to a correction condition or test-retest control. Immediately after misinformation was corrected and facts affirmed, participants re-rated their belief and were asked whether they could remember the items' presented veracity. Participants repeated this post-test one month later. We found that belief and memory were highly associated, both immediately (⍴ = 0.51), and after one month (⍴ = 0.82), and that memory explained 66% of the variance in belief regression after correcting for measurement reliability. We found the rate of dissenting (accurately remembering that misinformation was presented as false but still believing it) remained stable between the immediate and delayed post-test, while the rate of forgetting quadrupled. After one month, 57% of participants who believed in the misinformation thought that the items were presented to them as true. Belief regression was more pronounced for misinformation than facts, but this was greatly attenuated once pre-test belief was equated. Together, these results clearly indicate that memory plays a fundamental role in belief regression, and that repeated corrections could be an effective method to counteract this phenomenon.

Indexed as

CommunicationMental RecallHumansReproducibility of ResultsBelief regressionBelief updatingMemoryMisinformation

Identifiers

PMID36174261
PMCPMC10710738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.