Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42747702›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2026

The continued influence effect and situation models: Evidence for the model-updating account.

Carolin V Hey, Marie Luisa Schaper, Ute J Bayen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Carolin V HeyFaculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Building 23.02, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6431-5093
Marie Luisa SchaperFaculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Building 23.02, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. marie.schaper@hhu.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8912-8569
Ute J BayenFaculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Institute for Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Building 23.02, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0062-3155

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information often continues to influence judgments even after retraction (Continued Influence Effect, CIE). According to the model-updating account, the CIE occurs because humans base their judgments on situation models that are not completely updated and, thus, continue to contain the original information despite retraction. These situation models should determine the CIE. However, direct evidence for this account is lacking. The aim of the current research was to test the model-updating account by assessing participants' situation models and testing whether these models mediated effects of the credibility of the original informant and of the retractor on the CIE. Participants (N = 435) read a fictitious news report in which original information and retraction were presented by sources of either high or low credibility. Source credibility was disclosed or not disclosed before processing of the original information and retraction. Thus, source credibility could or could not affect situation-model construction, respectively. Supporting the model-updating account, structural equation modeling showed that, when source credibility was disclosed before information processing, the situation model updated after retraction fully mediated the effect of informant credibility and partially mediated the effect of retractor credibility on the CIE. Higher source credibility led to stronger effects of original information and retraction on judgments than lower source credibility. When source credibility was not disclosed before information processing, it did not affect the CIE. These results strongly support the model-updating account and are inconsistent with purely retrieval-based CIE accounts. Some unexpected effects, however, could not be explained by the model-updating account alone.

Indexed as

Continued influence effectMemoryMisinformationSituation modelSource credibility

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.