But where's the evidence? The effect of explanatory corrections on inferences about false information

CogSci 2017 - Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society: Computational Foundations of Cognition

Volumn , Issue , 2017, Pages 1824-1829

  Desai, Saoirse Connor ^a   Reimers, Stian ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Continued Influence; Corrections; Explanations; False Information; Inference; Memory; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

CONTINUED INFLUENCE; CORRECTION; EXPLANATION; FALSE INFORMATION; INFERENCE; LIMITED INFORMATION; NEWS REPORTS; REASONING;

EID: 85066513197     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Bush, J. G., Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). The implications of corrections: Then why did you mention it? In Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Cognitive Science Society Conference, Atlanta, Georgia (Vol. 27, pp. 112-117). Atlanta.
2. Carlson, K. a, & Russo, J. E. (2001). Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 7(2), 91-103. http://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.7.2.91
3. Connor Desai, S., & Reimers, S. (2016). Direct and indirect measures of the Continued Influence Effect. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Apai, J. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane!-No, actually it was a technical fault: processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 64(2), 283-310. http://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.497927
5. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 570-578. http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1
6. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1087-1100. http://doi.org/10.3758/mc.38.8.1087
7. Fein, S., McCloskey, a. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the Jury Disregard that Information? The Use of Suspicion to Reduce the Prejudicial Effects of Pretrial Publicity and Inadmissible Testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(11), 1215-1226. http://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972311008
8. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In J. L. Cole, P., & Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: NY: Academic Press.
9. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the Continued Influence Effect: When Misinformation in Memory Affects Later Inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420-1436. http://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420
10. Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible Testimony, Instructions to Disregard, and the Jury: Substantive Versus Procedural Considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. http://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972310005
11. Lagnado, D. a, & Harvey, N. (2008). The impact of discredited evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1166-1173. http://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1166
12. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
13. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
14. Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2016). The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 42(1), 62-74. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000155
15. Seifert, C. M. (2014). The Continued Influence Effect: The Persistence of Misinformation in Memory and Reasoning Following Correction. (Rapp, David N., Braasch, Jason L.G., Ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
16. Tenney, E. R., Cleary, H. M. D., & Spellman, B. A. (2009). Unpacking the doubt in “beyond a reasonable doubt”: Plausible alternative stories increase not guilty verdicts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 1-8. http://doi.org/10.1080/01973530802659687
17. Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 40(2), 361-387. http://doi.org/10.1080/02724988843000168