The effects of inoculation interventions and repetition on perceived truth in younger and older adults

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Jessica Udry , Sarah J. Barber
{"title":"The effects of inoculation interventions and repetition on perceived truth in younger and older adults","authors":"Jessica Udry ,&nbsp;Sarah J. Barber","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Inoculation interventions aim to improve discernment between true and false information, but their effectiveness with older adults is unknown. It is also unknown whether inoculation interventions are effective when misinformation is repeated, as repetition tends to make information seem truer, a phenomenon known as the illusory truth effect. To evaluate whether inoculation intervention efficacy varies with age and information repetition, in this study older and younger adult participants received either an inoculation treatment, in which they learned about a misinformation technique, or they received no intervention. Participants then completed a social media exposure phase where they saw true news headlines, as well as neutrally-framed and manipulatively-framed false news headlines. Participants rated the perceived truth of repeated and new headlines both immediately and after two weeks. Perceptions of threat and counterarguing, two proposed mediators for inoculation efficacy, were measured during both rating phases. Results revealed an illusory truth effect, such that repeated headlines were rated truer than new headlines. The magnitude of this illusory truth effect was larger for older than younger adults and was larger on the delayed than immediate test. However, the inoculation intervention did not improve discernment between true and false information and did not reduce the magnitude of the illusory truth effect for either age group. Although participants in the inoculation and control groups did not differ in perceived threat or counterarguing, counterarguing was consistently associated with higher discernment between true and false headlines. This suggests that counterarguing is an important factor associated with truth discernment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"265 ","pages":"Article 106275"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001002772500215X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inoculation interventions aim to improve discernment between true and false information, but their effectiveness with older adults is unknown. It is also unknown whether inoculation interventions are effective when misinformation is repeated, as repetition tends to make information seem truer, a phenomenon known as the illusory truth effect. To evaluate whether inoculation intervention efficacy varies with age and information repetition, in this study older and younger adult participants received either an inoculation treatment, in which they learned about a misinformation technique, or they received no intervention. Participants then completed a social media exposure phase where they saw true news headlines, as well as neutrally-framed and manipulatively-framed false news headlines. Participants rated the perceived truth of repeated and new headlines both immediately and after two weeks. Perceptions of threat and counterarguing, two proposed mediators for inoculation efficacy, were measured during both rating phases. Results revealed an illusory truth effect, such that repeated headlines were rated truer than new headlines. The magnitude of this illusory truth effect was larger for older than younger adults and was larger on the delayed than immediate test. However, the inoculation intervention did not improve discernment between true and false information and did not reduce the magnitude of the illusory truth effect for either age group. Although participants in the inoculation and control groups did not differ in perceived threat or counterarguing, counterarguing was consistently associated with higher discernment between true and false headlines. This suggests that counterarguing is an important factor associated with truth discernment.
接种干预和重复对年轻人和老年人感知真相的影响
接种干预旨在提高对真实和虚假信息的辨别能力,但其对老年人的有效性尚不清楚。当错误信息被重复时,接种干预是否有效也是未知的,因为重复往往会使信息看起来更真实,这种现象被称为虚幻真相效应。为了评估接种干预效果是否随年龄和信息重复而变化,在本研究中,老年人和年轻人接受接种治疗,其中他们了解了错误的信息技术,或者他们没有接受干预。然后,参与者完成了社交媒体曝光阶段,他们看到了真实的新闻标题,以及中性框架和操纵框架的虚假新闻标题。参与者分别在两周后和两周后对重复新闻和新新闻的真实性进行评估。在两个评级阶段,对接种效力的两个拟议中介威胁和反驳的看法进行了测量。结果显示了一种虚幻真相效应,比如重复的标题被认为比新标题更真实。这种虚幻真相效应在老年人中比年轻人更大,在延迟测试中比在即时测试中更大。然而,接种干预并没有提高对真实和虚假信息的辨别,也没有降低两个年龄组的虚幻真相效应的程度。虽然接种组和对照组的参与者在感知威胁或反驳方面没有差异,但反驳始终与对真实和虚假标题的更高辨别有关。这表明反驳是辨别真相的一个重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信