From Autry and Duarte↱, "Correcting the unknown: Negated corrections may increase belief in misinformation", Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2021:
I'm just reading through this, now, but it's fascinating. After that summary comes an introductory section, recounting the framework for the questions at hand, and that is an extraordinarily enlightening discussion. If we ever wondered why people sometimes use a lot of words to say something seemingly simple, we might observe the example of a journal article when parsing the subtleties is part of its purpose.
Still, it's something to read through because it really does feel familiar, as if this is a detail of something we see and know in our own lives but could not necessarily explain. But if we start with a particular continued influence effect about false beliefs, the well-documented phenomenon "generalizes to other stimuli, including scientific journal articles, political information, and other fictional news stories", and now, at least, we know why the article feels relevant.
____________________
Notes:
Autry, Kevin S. and Shea E. Duarte. "Correcting the unknown: Negated corrections may increase belief in misinformation". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 31 March 2021. OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com. 30 April 2021. https://bit.ly/3xBRRqz
Corrections are not always effective at reducing belief in misinformation. Negated corrections, which state a piece of information is not true, may only be effective at inhibiting information an observer has already encountered. We compared the effectiveness of negated corrections and replacements while manipulating initial exposure to a target concept .... When subjects were exposed to the target concept, negated corrections reduced mentions of the misinformation relative to no correction; however, when not exposed to the concept, negated corrections increased mentions relative to no correction. These results demonstrate that negated corrections can increase belief in misinformation when observers have not been exposed to the misinformation.
I'm just reading through this, now, but it's fascinating. After that summary comes an introductory section, recounting the framework for the questions at hand, and that is an extraordinarily enlightening discussion. If we ever wondered why people sometimes use a lot of words to say something seemingly simple, we might observe the example of a journal article when parsing the subtleties is part of its purpose.
Still, it's something to read through because it really does feel familiar, as if this is a detail of something we see and know in our own lives but could not necessarily explain. But if we start with a particular continued influence effect about false beliefs, the well-documented phenomenon "generalizes to other stimuli, including scientific journal articles, political information, and other fictional news stories", and now, at least, we know why the article feels relevant.
____________________
Notes:
Autry, Kevin S. and Shea E. Duarte. "Correcting the unknown: Negated corrections may increase belief in misinformation". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 31 March 2021. OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com. 30 April 2021. https://bit.ly/3xBRRqz