Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018324›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Executive function and the continued influence of misinformation: A latent-variable analysis.

Paul McIlhiney, Gilles E Gignac, Ullrich K H Ecker, Briana L Kennedy, Michael Weinborn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors.

Paul McIlhineySchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4480-2406
Gilles E GignacSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Ullrich K H EckerSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Briana L KennedySchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3155-7800
Michael WeinbornSchool of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7094-9930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Misinformation can continue to influence reasoning after correction; this is known as the continued influence effect (CIE). Theoretical accounts of the CIE suggest failure of two cognitive processes to be causal, namely memory updating and suppression of misinformation reliance. Both processes can also be conceptualised as subcomponents of contemporary executive function (EF) models; specifically, working-memory updating and prepotent-response inhibition. EF may thus predict susceptibility to the CIE. The current study investigated whether individual differences in EF could predict individual differences in CIE susceptibility. Participants completed several measures of EF subcomponents, including those of updating and inhibition, as well as set shifting, and a standard CIE task. The relationship between EF and CIE was then assessed using a correlation analysis of the EF and CIE measures, as well as structural equation modelling of the EF-subcomponent latent variable and CIE latent variable. Results showed that EF can predict susceptibility to the CIE, especially the factor of working-memory updating. These results further our understanding of the CIE's cognitive antecedents and provide potential directions for real-world CIE intervention.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionMemory, Short-TermHumansIndividualityInhibition, PsychologicalProblem Solving

Identifiers

PMID37018324
PMCPMC10075451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.