Providing an alternative explanation improves misinformation rejection and alters event-related potentials during veracity judgements

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Sean Guo , Danni Chen , Xiaoqing Hu
{"title":"Providing an alternative explanation improves misinformation rejection and alters event-related potentials during veracity judgements","authors":"Sean Guo ,&nbsp;Danni Chen ,&nbsp;Xiaoqing Hu","doi":"10.1016/j.bandc.2025.106290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The continued influence effect of misinformation (CIE) occurs when misinformation affects memory and decision making even after correction. Here, we examined the neurocognitive processes underlying the correction and subsequent veracity judgements of misinformation. Employing electroencephalography (EEG), we examined event-related potentials (ERPs): the P300 during encoding of corrections, and the P300 and FN400 during subsequent veracity judgement. We compared ERPs between three conditions: misinformation that was retracted (retraction only), misinformation that was retracted with a correct alternative cause provided (retraction + alternative), and true information that was later confirmed (confirmation). Results showed that alternatives reduced the CIE significantly. During veracity judgements, the retraction + alternative condition exhibited a higher P300 than the retraction only condition, suggesting enriched recollection processes when re-encountering misinformation if an alternative explanation existed. In contrast, both retraction only and retraction + alternative conditions elicited a less negative FN400 compared to the confirmation condition, suggesting higher conceptual processing fluency of misinformation. Moreover, we found that greater levels of P300 when encoding retraction and alternative causes in the retraction + alternative condition were associated with improved veracity judgement accuracy. Together, these findings suggested that when providing an alternative cause in correcting misinformation, both recollection and encoding processes contributed to reduced CIE.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55331,"journal":{"name":"Brain and Cognition","volume":"186 ","pages":"Article 106290"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262625000302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The continued influence effect of misinformation (CIE) occurs when misinformation affects memory and decision making even after correction. Here, we examined the neurocognitive processes underlying the correction and subsequent veracity judgements of misinformation. Employing electroencephalography (EEG), we examined event-related potentials (ERPs): the P300 during encoding of corrections, and the P300 and FN400 during subsequent veracity judgement. We compared ERPs between three conditions: misinformation that was retracted (retraction only), misinformation that was retracted with a correct alternative cause provided (retraction + alternative), and true information that was later confirmed (confirmation). Results showed that alternatives reduced the CIE significantly. During veracity judgements, the retraction + alternative condition exhibited a higher P300 than the retraction only condition, suggesting enriched recollection processes when re-encountering misinformation if an alternative explanation existed. In contrast, both retraction only and retraction + alternative conditions elicited a less negative FN400 compared to the confirmation condition, suggesting higher conceptual processing fluency of misinformation. Moreover, we found that greater levels of P300 when encoding retraction and alternative causes in the retraction + alternative condition were associated with improved veracity judgement accuracy. Together, these findings suggested that when providing an alternative cause in correcting misinformation, both recollection and encoding processes contributed to reduced CIE.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain and Cognition
Brain and Cognition 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Brain and Cognition is a forum for the integration of the neurosciences and cognitive sciences. B&C publishes peer-reviewed research articles, theoretical papers, case histories that address important theoretical issues, and historical articles into the interaction between cognitive function and brain processes. The focus is on rigorous studies of an empirical or theoretical nature and which make an original contribution to our knowledge about the involvement of the nervous system in cognition. Coverage includes, but is not limited to memory, learning, emotion, perception, movement, music or praxis in relationship to brain structure or function. Published articles will typically address issues relating some aspect of cognitive function to its neurological substrates with clear theoretical import, formulating new hypotheses or refuting previously established hypotheses. Clinical papers are welcome if they raise issues of theoretical importance or concern and shed light on the interaction between brain function and cognitive function. We welcome review articles that clearly contribute a new perspective or integration, beyond summarizing the literature in the field; authors of review articles should make explicit where the contribution lies. We also welcome proposals for special issues on aspects of the relation between cognition and the structure and function of the nervous system. Such proposals can be made directly to the Editor-in-Chief from individuals interested in being guest editors for such collections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信