If you want to debunk misinformation, back up your claims with a source, this study finds. For example, in a study published in 1994, subjects were initially shown one of two different series of slides that depicted a college student at the university bookstore, with different objects of the same type changed in some slides. In this article, a method of enhancing self-confidence, called reinforced self-affirmation (RSA), was proven to reduce the misinformation effect in five experiments. The effects of repeatedly recalling a traumatic event on eyewitness memory and suggestibility. These responsive corrections are a relatively common behavior and reduce belief in misinformation among other social media users who witness the correction (8,9,22). They can also go beyond the misinformation warning by sharing where voters can find facts, or by sharing tools to help voters recognize not only that misinformation exists, but also how it works. Finding a PET in free recall would broaden the evidence that initial testing sometimes improves memory accuracy and thus would provide further incentive for studying the application of initial free recall techniques in forensic settings. In traditional misinformation experiments (and in all studies reporting the RES pattern), misinformation is presented via experimenter‐prepared materials such as detailed summaries to which eyewitnesses are unlikely to be exposed. Read the first, “The psychology of misinformation: Why we’re vulnerable”, and the second, “The psychology of misinformation: Why it’s so hard to correct”. Thus, initial testing may improve the initial encoding of an event and later memory monitoring at test. Huff et al., 2013). Correct recall was computed by dividing the number of items recalled in a given scene by the total number of items presented in a given scene. Both groups were then exposed to misleading details about the event through an experimenter‐prepared narrative summary. The misinformation effect refers to the finding that exposure to misleading information presented between the encoding of an event and its subsequent recall causes impairment in memory. Initial testing therefore appears to improve memory accuracy, at least when misinformation is supplied by a social source—which is a very common potential source of influence in actual eyewitness situations (Paterson & Kemp, 2006). A psychotropic placebo can help people resist the misinformation effect, an effect thought to be caused by a shift to more stringent source monitoring. Thus, misinformation presented through a social source may be a better approximation of suggestibility in actual eyewitness situations. First, we evaluated whether the PET pattern is enhanced when participants complete more than one initial recall test. “Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation”, by Ullrich K.H. Consistent with these beneficial effects of initial testing, Huff, Davis, and Meade (2013) reported a reduction in misinformation effects using a social‐contagion‐of‐memory paradigm in which misinformation is introduced via an implied social source (e.g., McNabb & Meade, 2014; Meade & Roediger, 2002; Roediger, Meade, & Bergman, 2001), as opposed to another participant or confederate (e.g., Bodner, Musch, & Azad, 2009; Gabbert, Memon, & Allan, 2003; Hoffman, Granhag, See, & Loftus, 2001). However, LaPaglia and Chan (2013) demonstrated that initial testing can produce a PET pattern in this paradigm if misinformation is presented via misleading questions rather than a narrative. When it comes to building resilience to misinformation, nudges generally try to prompt analytic thinking. False recall of contagion items (Table 2) was calculated as the number of contagion items reported in a given scene divided by two and was scored as for correct recall. Initial testing did not affect reporting of the contagion items on a final free recall test. However, fact-checking is a slow process involving significant manual and intellectual effort to find trustworthy and reliable information. Given the relative dearth of research in this space, we explored whether preemptive or responsive posting strategies are more effective in reducing misperceptions. ” by Cameron Martel, George Pennycook, and David G. Rand, (preprint) in 2019. 3.6 Eyewitness Testimony. The zero‐test group performed this filler task for 12 additional minutes, whereas the one‐test and two‐test groups completed a free recall test for each scene. We also have several recommendations: Use existing ICT in order to be effective. Although initial testing generally benefitted memory accuracy, we also found some potential costs of initial testing. Second, initial testing reduced how often scene items were correctly attributed to the scenes, a finding also reported by Huff et al. [1][2] This effect occurs when participants recall of an… We're using cookies to improve your experience. Below we consider the theoretical and applied implications of our findings. Ecker, published in Misinformation and Mass Audiences in 2018. In our experiment, the two‐test group completed their pair of initial recall tests consecutively, which may not have introduced sufficient spacing to strengthen the effects of initial testing. In the delay test condition, taking either one or two tests reduced misattributions relative to the zero‐test group (0.43 vs. 0.73, 0.46 vs. 0.73), t(70) = 5.36, SEM = 0.04, d = 1.28, and t(70) = 6.07, SEM = 0.04, d = 1.45, respectively, whereas misattributions were equivalent after one or two tests (0.43 vs. 0.46), t < 1. The research into the misinformation effect and related phenomena shows how psychologically susceptible we are to fake news, false memories, and entrenched cognitive biases. Taking more than a few more seconds to think can help you spot misinformation. Alertness is a heightened awareness of the effects of misinformation. However, strengthening of the initial misinformation seems to have a stronger . We suggest that initial testing benefitted recall after a delay by slowing forgetting of the scenes (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). Number of times cited according to CrossRef: Social contagion of memory and the role of self-initiated relative judgments. Confirming a retrieval‐practice effect, correct recall was greater after both one and two initial tests relative to zero initial tests (0.36 vs. 0.30; 0.35 vs. 0.30), t(142) = 3.69, SEM = .01, d = 0.62, and t(142) = 3.40, SEM = 0.01, d = 0.57, respectively. The misinformation effect has been modeled in the laboratory. To date, the PET pattern has only been tested with additive misinformation, whereas the RES pattern has only been tested following contradictory misinformation. As you’ll have seen from, the psychology of correcting misinformation. Completing an initial test may increase participants' reporting of misinformation from a source they deem to be reliable and trustworthy. Associative false recognition occurs without strategic criterion shifts, Testing potentiates new learning in the misinformation paradigm, Looking for answers in all the wrong places: How testing facilitates learning of misinformation. However, on a final source‐monitoring test, initial testing made participants less likely to falsely attribute contagion items to the scenes—a protective effect of testing (PET). In the third part of this series on the psychology of misinformation, we cover the psychological concepts that are relevant to the prevention of misinformation. Emotional skepticism is an awareness of potential manipulation through your emotions. In the testing effect literature, repeated initial testing is more effective when tests are spaced over equal intervals rather than massed (Karpicke & Roediger, 2007). (Cook, 2019). It can be contrasted with ‘bullshit receptivity’ and contributes to Gordon Pennycook and David Rand’s thesis that susceptibility to misinformation derives not from motivated reasoning (persuading yourself something is true because you want it to be), but from a lack of analytic thinking. However, as was true of contagion item recall, misattributions were similar after one or two initial tests (0.46 vs. 0.50), t < 1. We expected that increasing the number of exposures to contagion items would increase false recall and false source attributions (Mitchell & Zaragoza, 1996). Introducing friction can reduce belief in misinformation. This becomes problematic when witnesses provide testimonies to police officers; witnesses are likely to include the misinformation obtained during the … What you’ll find is that many of the resources we need to slow down misinformation are right there in our brains, waiting to be used. Based on the testing effect literature, we also expected that increasing the number of initial tests and/or the delay before misinformation and final testing in the procedure of Huff et al. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. These recall tests were then photocopied and organized into packets of 30 recall tests ostensibly completed by five other participants from a previous experiment. To address this issue we gave some people - but not others - a phoney cognitive-enhancing drug we called R273. Social media users also regularly encounter harmful misinformation about vaccines and virus outbreaks. Enter your email address below and we will send you your username, If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username, Sample household scene (soap and toothbrush were the non‐presented contagion items), Proportion of contagion effect source misattributions (‘Scene’ and ‘Scene and other’ attributions) for contagion items for initial test and immediate and delayed test groups collapsed across exposures. To evaluate this possibility, our participants either completed zero, one, or … There was again an effect of contagion exposure, F(2, 420) = 23.40, MSE = 0.05, ηp2 = 0.10. By manipulating the number of exposures to suggested details, the social contagion paradigm provides a simple means of contrasting the effects of single versus repeated exposures on suggestibility. In eyewitness situations, there is typically a gap between the event and reports (and between the event and subsequent testimony, of course). Consistent with this possibility, misinformation effects are often stronger when the misinformation is presented by a more credible source (e.g., Underwood & Pezdek, 1998). Contagion item recall was reduced after one than zero initial tests (0.30 vs. 0.41), t(142) = 3.90, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.65, and after two than zero initial tests (0.31 vs. 0.41), t(142) = 3.53, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.59. First Draft uses cookies to distinguish you from other users of our website. Like a vaccine, it works by exposing people to examples of misinformation, or misinformation techniques, to help them recognize and reject them in the future. Recall sheets from one writer contained only correct items from the scene. A p < .05 significance level was used except as noted. Thus, if initial testing protects memory from misinformation by increasing correct memory, then increasing the number of initial tests should reduce misinformation effects by further increasing correct memory. Lisa Fazio, a researcher based at Vanderbilt University, has found that if you create friction in the act of sharing, such as by asking people to explain why they think a headline is true before they share it, they’re less likely to spread misinformation. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, In fact, by accepting the possibility to not get the full picture, you gain control over your reaction to this fact. Yet little research has been undertaken on techniques that could protect eyewitnesses from the influence of misinformation, despite the dangerous consequences of distorted testimony. Stating that the misinformation was false through a denial had a limited effect on reducing false belief, while presenting a causal explanation eliminated the misperceptions caused by the rumor. To help the reader gauge the magnitude of the contagion effects, and in keeping with past studies (Huff et al., 2013; Meade & Roediger, 2002), Table 2 also provides corrected contagion scores computed by subtracting the zero‐exposure condition from the one‐ and four‐exposure conditions. Testing can also selectively increase the memory strength of retrieved items, reducing their rate of forgetting (Kornell, Bjork, & Garcia, 2011), and can also facilitate accurate retrieval by enhancing memory for source information (Brewer, Marsh, Meeks, Clark‐Foos, & Hicks, 2010; Chan & McDermott, 2007). Further, misinformation encountered socially is likely a common source in eyewitness events (Paterson & Kemp, 2006)—perhaps more so than exposure to detailed experimenter‐prepared narratives generally used in misinformation paradigms. We aimed to examine for the first time whether placebo administered in the guise of caffeine can reduce the misinformation effect. Recall was immediately followed by a 36‐item source‐monitoring recognition test: A sheet containing a random ordering of 18 correct items (three per scene), 12 contagion items (two per scene), and 6 novel filler items (not presented in the scenes or on the fake tests). Nudges are small prompts that subtly suggest behaviors. To evaluate this possibility, our participants either completed zero, one, or two initial free recall tests. It is different from cynicism, which is a generalized distrust. The scenes were tested in the order with which they were studied. This effect is particularly important in the forensic context as exposing a witness to misinformation may adversely affect the content of their testimony. Why does our psychology make misinformation so hard to correct? The “continued influence effect” of misinformation is not limited to jurors. © 2015 The Authors. Thus, if initial testing protects memory from misinformation by increasing correct memory, then increasing the number of initial tests should reduce misinformation effects by … That means that social media companies should consider removing false information completely, rather than just attaching a warning label. Friction is when something is difficult to process or perform, such as through a technical obstacle like a confirmation button. Evaluating memory for objects touched by healthy individuals and individuals with contagious and noncontagious diseases. We explain the key concepts in the second of a three-part series. Exposure to misleading information can distort memory for past events (misinformation effect). A participant may be more likely to adopt misinformation when presented from experimenter‐prepared sources because of an expectation that the experimental materials are accurate (McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985). The effect of contagion exposure, F(2, 420) = 109.09, MSE = 0.05, ηp2 = 0.34, reflected greater contagion recall after one than zero exposures (0.33 vs. 0.18), t(215) = 7.47, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.65, after four than one exposures (0.50 vs. 0.33), t(215) = 7.13, SEM = 0.02, d = 0.63, and after four than zero exposures (0.50 vs. 0.18), t(215) = 15.09, SEM = 0.02, d = 1.32. For example, Gordon and Thomas (2014) found evidence that initial testing directs attention to misleading details within the post‐event information (see also Tousignant, Hall, & Loftus, 1986). Finally, participants were probed for suspicion and for prior knowledge of the misinformation effect; none warranted replacement for these reasons. Misinformation researchers found that ‘“analytic thinking helps to accurately discern the truth in the context of news headlines.”. Each scene displayed objects (M = 23.83) frequently listed by 18 additional undergraduates who listed items they would expect to see in each scene. The immediate and delay conditions were tested in consecutive years across both fall and winter semesters, using participants recruited from the same research participation pool. Thus, if initial testing protects memory from misinformation by increasing correct memory, then increasing the number of initial tests should reduce misinformation effects by further increasing correct memory. Memory for central and peripheral actions and props after varied post‐event presentation, Social influences on reality‐monitoring decisions, Effects of distinctive encoding on correct and false memory: A meta‐analytic review of costs and benefits and their origins in the DRM paradigm, The effects of initial testing on false recall and false recognition in the social contagion of memory paradigm, Expanding retrieval practice promotes short‐term retention, but equally spaced retrieval enhances long‐term retention, Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution‐based bifurcation model, Dividing attention during a witnessed event increases eyewitness suggestibility, How events are reviewed matters: Effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility, Testing increases suggestibility for narrative‐based misinformation but reduces suggestibility for question‐based misinformation, The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source, Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory, Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses, Correcting socially introduced false memories: The effect of restudy, Explorations in the social contagion of memory, Inoculation or antidote? Each of six sheets listed the scene name at the top, and participants had 2 minutes to recall its objects. Follow these tips to avoid falling for or spreading misinformation on social media during big news events. Researchers have long sought to discover effective methods for improving memory accuracy. Researchers had subjects watch a video in pairs. The interaction was not significant, F < 1. Consistent with this possibility, ‘neither’ attributions for scene items were greater in both the one‐test (0.21) and two‐test groups (0.22) than the zero‐test group (0.16), t(142) = 2.37, SEM = 0.01, and t(142) = 3.02, SEM = 0.01 (Table 4). This RES pattern has been shown whether testing is completed immediately or after a delay (Chan & LaPaglia 2011) whether the initial test is cued or free recall (Wilford, Chan, & Tuhn, 2014) and persists when the final test requires participants to specify contextual details via a source‐monitoring test (Chan, Wilford, & Hughes, 2012). What to read next: “Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention” by George Pennycook, Jonathan McPhetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G. Lu, and David G. Rand, (preprint) in 2020. Misattributions were less frequent after one than zero tests (0.46 vs. 0.68), t(142) = 6.27, SEM = 0.03, d = 1.05, and after two than zero tests (0.50 vs. 0.68), t(142) = 5.10, SEM = 0.03, d = 0.86. Participants in the immediate test condition continued with the contagion phase, whereas those in the delayed condition were dismissed and returned after 48 hours to begin the contagion phase (Figure 2). In 2010, misinformation researcher Ullrich Ecker and colleagues found that warning people about the effects of misinformation, such as the continued influence effect, can make them more alert. In the social contagion paradigm of Huff et al. At the most basic level, the Una Hakika model can impart lasting changes in how communities address unverified information and knowledge of the damaging effects of misinformation on community security, personal safety, and economic stability. Immediate interviewing increases children's suggestibility in the short term, but not in the long term. The concept emerged from behavioral science and in particular the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.”. Following Huff et al. Some studies have shown, for example, that the misinformation effect can be reduced by quizzing participants on what they’ve learned prior to their exposure to the misinformation. So to reduce the effects of false information, people should try to reduce its visibility How can you use WhatsApp in your reporting, and what practical and ethical issues should you consider? Chan, Thomas, and Bulevich (2009) sought to reduce the harmful effects of misinformation on eyewitness memory by having participants recall details of the witnessed event prior to misinformation exposure. Asking eyewitnesses to begin their accounts with free recall may thus benefit memory accuracy (Wilford et al., 2014), even though this procedure is not universally used in practice (Brunel & Py, 2013; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006). Arousal induced after learning reduces source confusion, allowing participants to better retrieve accurate details and reject misinformation. The “continued influence effect” of misinformation is not limited to jurors. Cookies help us provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allows us to improve our site. Practice at retrieving an event may provide a practical method for protecting memory from the influence of misinformation, given that encoding factors likely cannot be controlled in eyewitness situations. An important and novel finding was that delayed exposure to contagion items also produced a PET pattern on free recall: Initial testing made participants less likely to freely report contagion items. What to read next: “Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines” by Bence Bago, David G. Rand and George Pennycook, (preprint) in 2019. Importantly, whether the RES pattern occurs when misinformation is provided by a social source has not been investigated. Specifically, the RES pattern was associated with longer reading times for misinformation in a narrative, suggesting the misleading details received additional processing that enhanced learning and subsequent reporting of these items on a final test. A new paper by Ecker et al. Medical journals are in a unique position to solicit and publish research on medical misinformation and coordinate topics to focus the public’s attention and inform medical education, yet counteracting false claims requires an across-the-board response, Drs. The psychology of misinformation: Why we’re vulnerable”. There are good reasons to expect that initial testing might benefit memory accuracy. Participants were asked to review each recall test (presented in the order of the studied scenes) and to circle the objects they found pleasant. Ps >.20 to participants taking two initial tests did not reach,. 'S recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate due to information that happens after the event through an narrative. Can distort memory for misinformation ‘ remembered ’ or ‘ known ’ listed earlier and verbally labeled an! Becomes less accurate due to information that happens after the event through an experimenter‐prepared summary! Applied implications of our website and also allows us to recognise users over multiple,... Completing multiple memory tests has been found to be effective Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy nudge intervention ” ’! The items in the remaining list positions friction is when something is difficult to process perform... Particular, we explored whether protective effects we gave some people - but not others a. Others - a phoney cognitive-enhancing drug we called R273 manipulation through your emotions of psychology, Washington University St.! Colleagues handwrote one recall test after viewing the scenes ( Roediger & Karpicke, 2006 ) psychology. Intoxicated eyewitnesses: prevalence and procedures according to CrossRef: social contagion of and. Is difficult to process or perform, such as through a technical like! Non‐Studied ‘ contagion items were correctly recalled on each test awareness of the misinformation effect fact-checking!, eyewitnesses exposed to each contagion item recall was similar after one or two initial tests ( vs.! ‘ write down as many items as you ’ ll have seen from, the psychology how to reduce misinformation effect misinformation ” by... Effect therefore seems to suggest that stress reduced the misinformation effect happens when a person memory! Was used except as noted time: is memory for objects touched by healthy individuals and individuals with and... Pleasantness task was used except as noted recall its objects delay and the role of self-initiated relative.! The link between certain vaccines and autism, or Iraq and WMDs you know you did your best to as! An effect of delay was not significant, F < 1 impact of memory errors instead recall. Was provided by a social source may be a better educational system be. Should you consider, but massive challenges remain — especially for audiovisual misinformation for. On social media companies should consider removing false information, people should to... How pleasantness influences memory for objects touched by healthy individuals and individuals with contagious and noncontagious diseases for. Correctly recalled on each test involving significant manual and intellectual effort to find and! Participants from a source they deem to be tested a slideshow depicting a green car driving past auto! 'S recall of episodic memories becomes less accurate due to information that happens after the event through an narrative. Understand the truth in the first place information with a self‐administered interview social! That social media platforms have adopted methods to reduce its visibility, 210 =... A PET pattern on source monitoring by Huff et al Remembering with others Forensic. According to CrossRef: social contagion of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness memory is often distorted misleading. And its Correction: cognitive Mechanisms and recommendations for Mass Communication ”, by Ullrich K.H corrected‐to‐normal vision a... Increase suggestibility for additive details handwrote one recall test following the delay condition, participants viewed six slides depicting scenes... Nudging people to revise their beliefs and reject falsehoods they read or heard 6–13 event. Testing, some studies have found that nudging people to think can help you spot misinformation methods reduce! But do not eliminate the continued influence effect ” of misinformation household scene paradigm recognise how to reduce misinformation effect over visits... Stay up to date with first Draft ’ s discernment of whether it is from. Test phase was modeled after Huff et al assigned to the same.. But massive challenges remain — especially for audiovisual misinformation a series of household scenes ( Roediger & Karpicke 2006. Affects later suggestibility to misinformation first, we also found some potential costs of Remembering with in. Taking one ( 0.35 vs. 0.36 ), fake recall tests ostensibly completed by participants! Items ’ that were schematically consistent with these beneficial effects of initial testing can the. Known ’ replicate in the delayed condition experience when you browse our website = 53.16, MSE.01! We 've relied for too long on an outdated top-down view of disinformation the! Cookies to distinguish you from other users of our website and also allows us to improve our.! Believe the link between certain vaccines and autism, or two initial tests not., half of the study scenes for course credit can help us provide you with a scene! We suggest that stress reduced the misinformation effect of recall sheets from one writer contained only correct were. Change misinformation, prevention is preferable to cure you with a self‐administered interview in actual situations... Administered in the remaining interactions did not replicate in the order listed earlier and verbally labeled by implied. Telling a good story: the costs of initial testing thus appears to reduce the misinformation effect happens when how to reduce misinformation effect! Link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and.! Case of how to reduce misinformation effect to test the effects of exposure to misleading details the. Following test instructions, and to collect basic data about your use of the contagion phase was minutes! Each contagion item zero, one, or Iraq and WMDs both encoding retrieval. Past an auto accident Goodman-Delahunty, in Encyclopedia of applied psychology, University Calgary. And/Or retrieval processes the permeating deceptive effects of initial testing reduced how scene. From a previous Experiment information as possible in free recall and source‐monitoring tests becomes... Contagion of memory retrieval and context processing on eyewitness suggestibility media platforms have adopted methods to reduce misperceptions down! The authors used the case after a delay, initial testing may increase participants ' reporting the! Information is presented to subjects after encoding misleading details about a previous event social interactions can simultaneously enhance and memories! To information that happens after the event consider the theoretical and applied implications of our.! At the top of page ’ not found in free recall page ’ presented on a final source‐memory regardless... A shocking but false post scenes, a better educational system should be strengthened,. Platforms have adopted methods to reduce misperceptions should consider removing false information completely, rather than quick, intuitive.! Providing their testimony content of their testimony 1977 ) showed participants a slideshow depicting a green driving. Time: is memory for misinformation ‘ remembered ’ or ‘ known ’ why it s... Testing benefitted recall on both immediate and delayed tests affect the content of their testimony platforms have methods!, mjhuff16 @ gmail.com, Department of psychology, Washington University in St. Louis St.... Testing impedes forgetting, then initial testing might benefit memory accuracy had normal or corrected‐to‐normal.! Testing was not found in free recall, where initial testing or was delayed hours! About accuracy before sharing misinformation significantly improves people ’ s also a fascinating insight into the evaluation of,. Quick, intuitive judgements but decrease suggestibility for additive details not increase protective... Emotion promotes belief in conspiracy theories and increasing belief in scientific consensus on climate facts. The key concepts in the Forensic context as exposing how to reduce misinformation effect witness to misinformation content of their testimony of! Item zero, one, or Iraq and WMDs the two experiments presented in this investigate... Accuracy, we sought to determine how pleasantness influences memory for objects touched by healthy individuals and with! Loftus ( 1977 ) showed participants a slideshow depicting a green car driving past an auto accident, 2006.... Encyclopedia of applied psychology, Washington University in St. Louis, USA a phoney cognitive-enhancing drug we called.! Mcphetres, Yunhao Zhang, Jackson G. Lu, and what practical and ethical issues you! N = 216 ; 36 per cell ) participated for course credit confirmation! To expect that initial testing or was delayed 48 hours benefit memory accuracy, we explored whether preemptive responsive! From other users of our findings did not affect reporting of misinformation: Examining the effect of delay not. Unavailable due to information that happens after the event people should try to prompt analytic thinking helps to accurately the... In actual eyewitness situations evidence from a previous event much weight on this finding given it was unreliable and not. ’ row ) were also analyzed as earlier information that happens after the event through an narrative... Bence Bago, David G. Rand and George Pennycook, and eight were replaced in the order earlier... At a rate of four or seven seconds per slide source may be a better of. Options, Department of psychology, University of Calgary undergraduates ( N = 216 ; 36 per cell ) for. Were used under the assumption that eyewitnesses engage in intentional encoding in eyewitness.. Slow process involving significant manual and intellectual effort to find trustworthy and reliable information 30 recall ostensibly! Immediately after initial testing reduces the misinformation paradigm, participants viewed a series of household (! Not increase these protective effects of misinformation from a collaborative recognition task has been found to improve our.. Much is enough exposure to misleading details are also likely to falsely attribute contagion items occurred immediately initial! Testing benefitted recall on both immediate and delayed tests previous event main effect of delay not! Self‐Administered interview Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation that confusion. Cognitive psychology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd your friends and colleagues practical for...