Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

A large body of research has focused on whether and how readers update their knowledge of events when an initial piece of causal information is corrected. These studies have indicated that corrections can reduce, but do not eliminate, readers' reliance on the initial cause when drawing inferences or making decisions about the events (i.e.

Does evaluating belief prior to its retraction influence the efficacy of later corrections?

News stories unfold over time, with initial reports sometimes containing mistaken accounts of the newsworthy outcome that are ultimately revised or corrected. Because facts associated with newsworthy events are accumulated in this piecemeal fashion, readers often have repeated opportunities to reflect upon, discuss, and evaluate their belief in these accounts before they learn that initial news reports have been revised or retracted. The primary goal of the present study was to assess whether rating the strength of one's belief in the initially reported, mistaken cause might influence the efficacy of a later correction.

Analyzing Confabulations in Schizophrenia and Healthy Participants.

Objectives: Confabulations occur in schizophrenia and certain severe neuropsychiatric conditions, and to a lesser degree in healthy individuals. The present study used a forced confabulation paradigm to assess differences in confabulation between schizophrenia patients and healthy controls.

Methods: Schizophrenia patients (n=60) and healthy control participants (n=19) were shown a video with missing segments, asked to fill in the gaps with speculations, and tested on their memory for the story.

Belief in corrective feedback for common misconceptions: Implications for knowledge revision.

When correcting a common misconception, it seems likely that for corrective feedback to be effective, it needs to be believed. In 2 experiments, we assessed how participants' belief in the validity of corrective feedback regarding individual misconceptions influenced knowledge revision. After responding about the validity of a set of misconceptions, participants received either a refutation alone (feedback that they were correct or incorrect) or a refutation accompanied by a supporting explanation, and then rated their belief in the corrective feedback.

Does reactivating a witnessed memory increase its susceptibility to impairment by subsequent misinformation?

In a recent article, Chan and LaPaglia (2013) provided arguments and evidence to support the claim that reactivating a witnessed memory (by taking a test) renders the memory labile and susceptible to impairment by subsequent misinformation. In the current article, we argue that Chan and LaPaglia’s (2013) findings are open to alternative interpretations, and further test the hypothesis that reactivation increases a witnessed memory’s susceptibility to impairment. To this end, the current studies used a different set of materials and a different measure of memory impairment, the Modified Recognition Test (McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985).

The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports.

The piecemeal reporting of unfolding news events can lead to the reporting of mistaken information (or misinformation) about the cause of the newsworthy event, which later needs to be corrected. Studies of the continued influence effect have shown, however, that corrections are not entirely effective in reversing the effects of initial misinformation. Instead, participants continue to rely on the discredited misinformation when asked to draw inferences and make judgments about the news story.