Search

Research suggests exposure to misinformation continues to impact belief and reasoning, even if that misinformation has been corrected (referred to as the Continued Influence Effect, CIE). The present experiment explores two potentially important factors that may impact the effect: (1) learner age and (2) length of delay between retraction and final test. During initial learning, participants (both young and older adults) read six scenarios in which a critical piece of misinformation was either retracted or not retracted. Following no delay, a short (10 min) delay, or a long (2 days) delay, participants then answered inferential reasoning questions about the previously studied scenarios to evaluate how (if at all) the prior retraction impacts reliance on misinformation. Outcomes help us to understand the ways in which misinformation (even following retraction) impacts reasoning, an issue of exceeding importance as the proliferation of fake news shows no signs of slowing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Research suggests exposure to misinformation continues to impact belief and reasoning, even if that misinformation has been corrected (referred to as the Continued Influence Effect, CIE). The proposed experiment explores two potentially important factors that may impact the effect: (a) learner age and (b) length of delay between retraction and final test. During initial learning, participants (both young and older adults) will read six scenarios in which a critical piece of misinformation is either retracted or not retracted. Following no delay, a short (10 min) delay, or a long (2 days) delay, participants will then answer inferential reasoning questions about the previously‐studied scenarios to evaluate how (if at all) the prior retraction impacts reliance on misinformation. Outcomes will better help us to understand the ways in which misinformation (even following retraction) impacts reasoning, an issue of exceeding importance as the proliferation of fake news shows no signs of slowing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Collaborative inhibition is the counterintuitive finding that learners working in a group recall less information compared with the combined nonredundant output of the same number of learners working individually (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997). Although research has shown that collaborative inhibition occurs for a variety of to‐be‐learned material, no research has evaluated whether the effect emerges for key‐term definitions. In two experiments, learners individually studied key‐term definitions during an initial study phase. Learners then completed a retrieval practice phase, which occurred either collaboratively or individually. After a delay, all learners individually completed a final test phase. Performance during the retrieval practice phase is of greatest interest for present purposes. Results established collaborative inhibition such that recall was lower for learners in the collaborative group versus the individual group, which provides novel evidence to the collaborative memory literature by demonstrating that the effect emerges with key‐term definitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]