Correcting fake news headlines after repeated exposure: memory and belief accuracy in younger and older adults.

The efficacy of fake news corrections in improving memory and belief accuracy may depend on how often adults see false information before it is corrected. Two experiments tested the competing predictions that repeating fake news before corrections will either impair or improve memory and belief accuracy. These experiments also examined whether fake news exposure effects would differ for younger and older adults due to age-related differences in the recollection of contextual details. Younger and older adults read real and fake news headlines that appeared once or thrice. Next, they identified fake news corrections among real news headlines. Later, recognition and cued recall tests assessed memory for real news, fake news, if corrections occurred, and beliefs in retrieved details. Repeating fake news increased detection and remembering of corrections, correct real news retrieval, and erroneous fake news retrieval. No age differences emerged for detection of corrections, but younger adults remembered corrections better than older adults. At test, correct fake news retrieval for earlier-detected corrections was associated with better real news retrieval. This benefit did not differ between age groups in recognition but was greater for younger than older adults in cued recall. When detected corrections were not remembered at test, repeated fake news increased memory errors. Overall, both age groups believed correctly retrieved real news more than erroneously retrieved fake news to a similar degree. These findings suggest that fake news repetition effects on subsequent memory accuracy depended on age differences in recollection-based retrieval of fake news and that it was corrected.

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.

Fake news can have enduring effects on memory and beliefs. An ongoing theoretical debate has investigated whether corrections (fact-checks) should include reminders of fake news. The familiarity backfire account proposes that reminders hinder correction (increasing interference), whereas integration-based accounts argue that reminders facilitate correction (promoting memory integration). In three experiments, we examined how different types of corrections influenced memory for and belief in news headlines. In the exposure phase, participants viewed real and fake news headlines. In the correction phase, participants viewed reminders of fake news that either reiterated the false details (complete) or prompted recall of missing false details (partial); reminders were followed by fact-checked headlines correcting the false details. Both reminder types led to proactive interference in memory for corrected details, but complete reminders produced less interference than partial reminders (Experiment 1). However, when participants had fewer initial exposures to fake news and experienced a delay between exposure and correction, this effect was reversed; partial reminders led to proactive facilitation, enhancing correction (Experiment 2). This effect occurred regardless of the delay before correction (Experiment 3), suggesting that the effects of partial reminders depend on the number of prior fake news exposures. In all experiments, memory and perceived accuracy were better when fake news and corrections were recollected, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding. Overall, we show that when memories of fake news are weak or less accessible, partial reminders are more effective for correction; when memories of fake news are stronger or more accessible, complete reminders are preferable.

On the role of memory in misinformation corrections: Repeated exposure, correction durability, and source credibility.

Misinformation can negatively affect cognition, beliefs, and behavior, and thus contribute to societal disruption. Correcting misinformation can counteract these effects by updating memory and beliefs. In this selective review, we highlight recent perspectives on and evidence for the role of memory in the efficacy of correction methods. Two theoretical accounts propose that repeating misinformation can impair or improve correction efficacy to the extent that familiarity or integrative encoding prevails. We summarize evidence that recollection of corrections can counteract potential interference from misinformation repetitions on memory and belief updating. The efficacy of such updating also declines over time, especially when misinformation sources are not remembered. We call for more research on the role of memory in everyday misinformation corrections to better understand interactions among these processes.

Testing can enhance episodic memory updating in younger and older adults.

Older adults sometimes show impaired memory for recent episodes, especially those that are similar but not identical to existing memories. Two experiments examined if interpolated testing between episodes improves recent memories for older and younger adults (N = 60 per group and experiment). Participants studied two lists of cue-response word pairs. Some pairs included the same cue in both lists with changed responses. Between lists, List 1 pairs were tested (Experiments 1 and 2), tested with corrective feedback (Experiment 1 only), or restudied (Experiment 2 only). On a final cued recall test, participants attempted to recall the List 2 response, indicated if responses had changed between lists, and if so, attempted to recall the List 1 response. List 2 recalls for changed pairs operationalized episodic memory updating. Older adults showed poorer List 2 recall than younger adults. But both age groups showed improved List 2 recall following interpolated testing with or without feedback compared to no-test and restudy contrast conditions. This so-called forward testing effect was accompanied by improved memory for responses having changed across lists. These results contrast with the inhibitory deficit proposal that older adults should be more interference prone than younger adults when competing responses are more accessible during encoding. These findings are more compatible with the view that retrieval practice of competing responses can support the encoding of cross-episode associations and potentially mitigate interference, thus improving age-related associative memory deficits. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Fake news reminders and veracity labels differentially benefit memory and belief accuracy for news headlines.

Fake news exposure can negatively affect memory and beliefs, thus sparking debate about whether to repeat misinformation during corrections. The once-prevailing view was that repeating misinformation increases its believability and should thus be avoided. However, misinformation reminders have more recently been shown to enhance memory and belief accuracy. We replicated such reminder benefits in two experiments using news headlines and compared those benefits against the effects of veracity labeling. Specifically, we examined the effects of labeling real news corrections to enhance conflict salience (Experiment 1) and labeling fake news on its debut to encourage intentional forgetting (Experiment 2). Participants first viewed real and fake news headlines with some fake news labeled as false. Participants then saw labeled and unlabeled real news corrections; labeled corrections appeared alone or after fake news reminders. Reminders promoted the best memory and belief accuracy, whereas veracity labels had selective effects. Correction labels led to intermediate memory and belief accuracy, whereas fake news labels improved accuracy for beliefs more than memory. The extent that real and fake news details were recalled together correlated with overall memory and belief differences across conditions, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding that was promoted most by fake news reminders.

Recalling fake news during real news corrections can impair or enhance memory updating: the role of recollection-based retrieval.

Fake news can impair memory leading to societal controversies such as COVID-19 vaccine efficacy. The pernicious influence of fake news is clear when ineffective corrections leave memories outdated. A key theoretical issue is whether people should recall fake news while reading corrections with contradictory details. The familiarity backfire view proposes that recalling fake news increases its familiarity, leading to interference. However, the integrative encoding view proposes that recalling fake news promotes co-activation and binding of contradictory details, leading to facilitation. Two experiments examined if one theory better accounts for memory updating after participants recalled actual fake news details when reading headlines that corrected misinformation. In Phase 1, participants read real and fake news headlines of unclear veracity taken from various internet sources. In Phase 2, participants read real news headlines that reaffirmed real news and corrected fake news from Phase 1. When they detected that Phase 2 real news corrected fake news, they attempted to recall Phase 1 fake news. In Phase 3, participants first recalled real news details. When they remembered that those details were corrections from Phase 2, they attempted to recall fake news from Phase 1. Recalling fake news when noticing corrections in Phase 2 led to better memory for real news in Phase 3 when fake news was recalled again and worse memory for real news in Phase 3 when fake news was not recalled again. Both views explain part of the memory differences associated with recalling fake news during corrections, but only when considering whether people recollected that fake news had been corrected.