The effects of exposure to differing amounts of misinformation and source credibility perception on source monitoring and memory accuracy
Article
Pena, MM, Klemfuss, JZ, Loftus, EF et al. (2017). The effects of exposure to differing amounts of misinformation and source credibility perception on source monitoring and memory accuracy
. 4(4), 337-347. 10.1037/cns0000137
Pena, MM, Klemfuss, JZ, Loftus, EF et al. (2017). The effects of exposure to differing amounts of misinformation and source credibility perception on source monitoring and memory accuracy
. 4(4), 337-347. 10.1037/cns0000137
Although it is well known that exposure to misinformation after an event can alter memory, less known are the effects of being presented with different amounts of misinformation. The present study examined (a) how exposure to different amounts of misinformation affects memory, (b) how sensitively individuals monitor the accuracy of a (mis)information source, (c) whether perceived credibility of the misinformation source mediates the relations between misinformation exposure and memory accuracy, (d) whether perceived source credibility is associated with improved source monitoring, and (e) how exposure to different amounts of misinformation affects the ability to accurately assess one's own memory performance. Participants watched a mock crime video, were exposed to a misleading narrative about the video containing 20%, 50%, or 80% misinformation, completed a memory test, and rated the credibility of the misinformation source and their own memory performance. Receiving more misinformation decreased memory accuracy. Interestingly, receiving more misinformation also led subjects to become more skeptical of the credibility of the narrative, dampening the negative effect of misinformation on memory accuracy. In addition, individuals' perceptions of the source's credibility and source monitoring accuracy were negatively associated. Lastly, participants' performance estimates and confidence were well calibrated to their actual performance, except when they were misled, supporting the idea that misinformed responses are more difficult to monitor. Participants also tended to overestimate their accuracy, particularly when they performed poorly.
