ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2023
Multiple-choice quizzes improve memory for misinformation debunks, but do not reduce belief in misinformation.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conditioning Public Opinion Perceptions by "Survey Methods 101": Informing, Engaging, and Motivating Individuals for Critical Processing of Public Opinion Polls.Public opinion quarterly · 2026Article
- Automated evaluation systems to enhance exam quality and reduce test anxiety.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Correcting fake news headlines after repeated exposure: memory and belief accuracy in younger and older adults.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Combatting rumors around the French election: the memorability and effectiveness of fact-checking articles.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fact-checkers want people to both read and remember their misinformation debunks. Retrieval practice is one way to increase memory, thus multiple-choice quizzes may be a useful tool for fact-checkers. We tested whether exposure to quizzes improved people's accuracy ratings for fact-checked claims and their memory for specific information within a fact check. Across three experiments, 1551 US-based online participants viewed fact checks (either health- or politics-related) with or without a quiz. Overall, the fact checks were effective, and participants were more accurate in rating the claims after exposure. In addition, quizzes improved participants' memory for the details of the fact checks, even 1 week later. However, that increased memory did not lead to more accurate beliefs. Participants' accuracy ratings were similar in the quiz and no-quiz conditions. Multiple-choice quizzes can be a useful tool for increasing memory, but there is a disconnect between memory and belief.
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.