Making the Truth Stick & the Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

Q2 Social Sciences
N. Schwarz, Eryn J. Newman, William R. Leach
{"title":"Making the Truth Stick & the Myths Fade: Lessons from Cognitive Psychology","authors":"N. Schwarz, Eryn J. Newman, William R. Leach","doi":"10.1177/237946151600200110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Erroneous beliefs are difficult to correct. Worse, popular correction strategies, such as the myth-versus-fact article format, may backfire because they subtly reinforce the myths through repetition and further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. Here we identify five key criteria people employ as they evaluate the truth of a statement: They assess general acceptance by others, gauge the amount of supporting evidence, determine its compatibility with their beliefs, assess the general coherence of the statement, and judge the credibility of the source of the information. In assessing these five criteria, people can actively seek additional information (an effortful analytic strategy) or attend to the subjective experience of easy mental processing—what psychologists call fluent processing—and simply draw conclusions on the basis of what feels right (a less effortful intuitive strategy). Throughout this truth-evaluation effort, fluent processing can facilitate acceptance of the statement: When thoughts flow smoothly, people nod along. Unfortunately, many correction strategies inadvertently make the false information more easily acceptable by, for example, repeating it or illustrating it with anecdotes and pictures. This, ironically, increases the likelihood that the false information the communicator wanted to debunk will be believed later. A more promising correction strategy is to focus on making the true information as easy to process as possible. We review recent research and offer recommendations for more effective presentation and correction strategies.","PeriodicalId":36971,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Science and Policy","volume":"2 1","pages":"85 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"147","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Science and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/237946151600200110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 147

Abstract

Erroneous beliefs are difficult to correct. Worse, popular correction strategies, such as the myth-versus-fact article format, may backfire because they subtly reinforce the myths through repetition and further increase the spread and acceptance of misinformation. Here we identify five key criteria people employ as they evaluate the truth of a statement: They assess general acceptance by others, gauge the amount of supporting evidence, determine its compatibility with their beliefs, assess the general coherence of the statement, and judge the credibility of the source of the information. In assessing these five criteria, people can actively seek additional information (an effortful analytic strategy) or attend to the subjective experience of easy mental processing—what psychologists call fluent processing—and simply draw conclusions on the basis of what feels right (a less effortful intuitive strategy). Throughout this truth-evaluation effort, fluent processing can facilitate acceptance of the statement: When thoughts flow smoothly, people nod along. Unfortunately, many correction strategies inadvertently make the false information more easily acceptable by, for example, repeating it or illustrating it with anecdotes and pictures. This, ironically, increases the likelihood that the false information the communicator wanted to debunk will be believed later. A more promising correction strategy is to focus on making the true information as easy to process as possible. We review recent research and offer recommendations for more effective presentation and correction strategies.
让真理坚持和神话褪色:来自认知心理学的教训
错误的信念很难改正。更糟糕的是,流行的纠正策略,如神话与事实的文章格式,可能会适得其反,因为它们通过重复巧妙地强化了神话,进一步增加了错误信息的传播和接受。在这里,我们确定了人们在评估陈述的真实性时使用的五个关键标准:他们评估他人的普遍接受程度,衡量支持证据的数量,确定其与自己信念的兼容性,评估陈述的总体一致性,并判断信息来源的可信度。在评估这五个标准时,人们可以积极地寻找额外的信息(一种努力的分析策略),或者关注轻松的心理处理的主观体验——心理学家称之为流畅的处理——并简单地在感觉正确的基础上得出结论(一种不那么努力的直觉策略)。在整个评估真相的过程中,流畅的处理过程可以促进对陈述的接受:当思想流畅时,人们会点头。不幸的是,许多纠正策略无意中使错误信息更容易被接受,例如,重复或用轶事和图片说明。具有讽刺意味的是,这增加了传播者想要揭穿的虚假信息日后被相信的可能性。一个更有希望的校正策略是把重点放在使真实信息尽可能容易处理上。我们回顾了最近的研究,并提出了更有效的陈述和纠正策略的建议。
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
Behavioral Science and Policy
Behavioral Science and Policy Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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