信息效价对错误信息持续影响效应的影响：错误信息信念的中介作用

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.05.015

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

错误信息的持续影响效应(CIE)已被大量研究证实，但错误信息效价对CIE的影响还不清楚。本研究通过两个行为实验探讨了信息效价对CIE的影响。实验1发现，消极错误信息的CIE显著大于积极错误信息。实验2验证了实验1的结果，并进一步发现，消极错误信息信念显著高于积极错误信息信念，并且错误信息信念在效价对CIE的影响中起到中介作用；但消极错误信息的再认正确率和积极错误信息无显著差异。结果支持心理模型更新理论。结果提示，与积极错误信息相比，人们可能更容易信任消极错误信息，致使其更正信息更难以整合到事件的心理模型中，从而产生了更大的CIE，心理模型更新失败假设可以在认知上更好地解释效价对错误信息持续影响效应的影响。

关键词: 持续影响效应, 信息效价, 心理模型, 提取失败

Abstract:

The continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation has been extensively documented, but the impact of misinformation valence on CIE remains unclear. This study explored how misinformation valence modulates CIE through two behavioral experiments. Experiment 1 found that the CIE of negative misinformation was significantly greater than that of positive misinformation. Experiment 2 verified the results of Experiment 1 and further revealed that belief in negative misinformation was significantly greater than belief in positive misinformation. Additionally, belief in misinformation mediated the effect of misinformation valence on CIE. However, the study observed no significant difference in recognition accuracy between negative and positive misinformation conditions. The findings support the mental model updating theory, indicating that individuals are more inclined to trust negative misinformation compared to positive misinformation. This tendency complicates the integration of corrected information into their mental representation of an event, resulting in a larger CIE. The challenges associated with updating mental models provide a more comprehensive cognitive framework for understanding how the valence of misinformation affects CIE.

Key words: continued influence effect, valence of information, mental model, retrieval failure

金花, 王超, 阴晓娟, 贾丽娜, 王旭英. 信息效价对错误信息持续影响效应的影响：错误信息信念的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(5): 690-696.

Hua JIN, Chao WANG, Xiaojuan YIN, Lina JIA, Xuying WANG. Effects of Misinformation Valence on Continued Influence Effect: The Mediating Role of Misinformation Belief[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(5): 690-696.

图/表 4

参考文献 0

	金花, 贾丽娜, 阴晓娟, 严世振, 魏士琳, 陈俊涛. 错误信息持续影响效应的神经基础. 心理学报, 2022, 54 (4): 343- 355.
	黄宇霞, 罗跃嘉. 负性情绪刺激是否总是优先得到加工: ERP研究. 心理学报, 2009, 41 (9): 822- 831.
	王阳, 温忠麟. 基于两水平被试内设计的中介效应分析方法. 心理科学, 2018, 41 (5): 1233- 1239.
	Bago, B., Rosenzweig, L. R., Berinsky, A. J., & Rand, D. G. Emotion may predict susceptibility to fake news but emotion regulation does not seem to help. Cognition and Emotion, 2022, 36 (6): 1166- 1180. DOI
	Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 2001, 5 (4): 323- 370. DOI
	Brydges, C. R., Gignac, G. E., & Ecker, U. K. H. Working memory capacity, short-term memory capacity, and the continued influence effect: A latent-variable analysis. Intelligence, 2018, 69, 117- 122. DOI
	Brydges, C. R., Gordon, A., & Ecker, U. K. H. Electrophysiological correlates of the continued influence effect of misinformation: An exploratory study. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 2020, 32 (8): 771- 784. DOI
	Buczel, K. A., Szyszka, P. D., Siwiak, A., Szpitalak, M., & Polczyk, R. Vaccination against misinformation: The inoculation technique reduces the continued influence effect. PLoS One, 2022, 17 (4): e0267463. DOI
	Chang, E. P., Ecker, U. K. H., & Page, A. C. Not wallowing in misery—retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination. Cognition & Emotion, 2019, 33 (5): 991- 1005.
	Cobb, M. D., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. Beliefs don’t always persevere: How political figures are punished when positive information about them is discredited. Political Psychology, 2013, 34 (3): 307- 326. DOI
	Ecker, U. K. H., & Antonio, L. M. Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect. Memory & Cognition, 2021, 49 (4): 631- 644.
	Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cheung, C. S. C., & Maybery, M. T. He did it! She did it! No, she did not! Multiple causal explanations and the continued influence of misinformation. Journal of Memory and Language, 2015, 85, 101- 115. DOI
	Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., ... Amazeen, M. A. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2022, 1 (1): 13- 29. DOI
	Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Fenton, O., & Martin, K. Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 2014, 42 (2): 292- 304.
	Ecker, U. K. H., & Rodricks, A. E. Do false allegations persist? Retracted misinformation does not continue to influence explicit person impressions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2020, 9 (4): 587- 601. DOI
	Fessler, D. M. T., Pisor, A. C., & Navarrete, C. D. Negatively-biased credulity and the cultural evolution of beliefs. PLoS One, 2014, 9 (4): e95167. DOI
	Gordon, A., Brooks, J. C. W., Quadflieg, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. Exploring the neural substrates of misinformation processing. Neuropsychologia, 2017, 106, 216- 224. DOI
	Guillory, J. J., & Geraci, L. The persistence of erroneous information in memory: The effect of valence on the acceptance of corrected information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2016, 30 (2): 282- 288. DOI
	Hilbig, B. E.. Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2009, 45 (4): 983- 986. DOI
	Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420–1436.
	Kensinger, E. A., & Corkin, S. Effect of negative emotional content on working memory and long-term memory. Emotion, 2003, 3 (4): 378- 393. DOI
	Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2012, 13 (3): 106- 131. DOI
	Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 2017, 22 (1): 6- 27. DOI
	O’Rear, A. E., & Radvansky, G. A. Failure to accept retractions: A contribution to the continued influence effect. Memory & Cognition, 2020, 48 (1): 127- 144.
	Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2019, 116 (7): 2521- 2526.
	Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2016). The continued influence of implied and explicitly stated misinformation in news reports. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(1), 62–74.
	Rich, P. R., & Zaragoza, M. S. Correcting misinformation in news stories: An investigation of correction timing and correction durability. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2020, 9 (3): 310- 322. DOI
	Susmann, M. W., & Wegener, D. T. The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 2022, 50 (2): 435- 448.
	Susmann, M. W., & Wegener, D. T. How attitudes impact the continued influence effect of misinformation: The mediating role of discomfort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2023, 49 (5): 744- 757. DOI
	van Huijstee, D., Vermeulen, I., Kerkhof, P., & Droog, E. Continued influence of misinformation in times of COVID-19. International Journal of Psychology, 2022, 57 (1): 136- 145. DOI
	Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: How powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it. Communication Research, 2020, 47 (2): 155- 177. DOI
	Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 2000, 107 (1): 101- 126. DOI
	Xu, Y., Wong, R., He, S. H., Veldre, A., & Andrews, S. Is it smart to read on your phone? The impact of reading format and culture on the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 2020, 48 (7): 1112- 1127.

效价	控制条件	错误信息更正条件
积极	某外卖商家月销量六千单。学生说，该商家在抖音的点击率很高。该商家的位置位于临近郊区。上个月，卫生部门对该商家进行了检查。经调查，该商家卫生不符合标准。人们点外卖时要综合考虑。	某外卖商家月销量六千单。学生说，该商家食品卫生、包装干净。该商家的位置位于临近郊区。上个月，卫生部门对该商家进行了检查。经调查，该商家卫生不符合标准。人们点外卖时要综合考虑。
消极	今天，开往某城市的大巴车未能正点运行。乘客说，大巴车临时出现故障。乘客被要求返回候车室等候进一步消息。负责人员此时无法进行面谈。现场的消防人员说没有火灾的迹象。最终取消了该大巴车的行程。	今天，开往某城市的大巴车未能正点运行。乘客说，大巴车内出现了火苗。乘客被要求返回候车室等候进一步消息。负责人员此时无法进行面谈。现场的消防人员说没有火灾的迹象。最终取消了该大巴车的行程。

效价	控制条件	错误信息更正条件
积极	某外卖商家月销量六千单。学生说，该商家在抖音的点击率很高。该商家的位置位于临近郊区。上个月，卫生部门对该商家进行了检查。经调查，该商家卫生不符合标准。人们点外卖时要综合考虑。	某外卖商家月销量六千单。学生说，该商家食品卫生、包装干净。该商家的位置位于临近郊区。上个月，卫生部门对该商家进行了检查。经调查，该商家卫生不符合标准。人们点外卖时要综合考虑。
消极	今天，开往某城市的大巴车未能正点运行。乘客说，大巴车临时出现故障。乘客被要求返回候车室等候进一步消息。负责人员此时无法进行面谈。现场的消防人员说没有火灾的迹象。最终取消了该大巴车的行程。	今天，开往某城市的大巴车未能正点运行。乘客说，大巴车内出现了火苗。乘客被要求返回候车室等候进一步消息。负责人员此时无法进行面谈。现场的消防人员说没有火灾的迹象。最终取消了该大巴车的行程。

条件	信息效价	推理分数	信息再认正确率	信念分数
错误信息更正	消极	5.44±1.39	0.82±0.14	4.85±1.37
错误信息更正	积极	4.24±1.16	0.83±0.18	4.18±1.41
控制	消极	3.94±1.40	0.87±0.13	6.89±1.09
控制	积极	3.53±1.36	0.82±0.14	6.74±1.05

条件	信息效价	推理分数	信息再认正确率	信念分数
错误信息更正	消极	5.44±1.39	0.82±0.14	4.85±1.37
错误信息更正	积极	4.24±1.16	0.83±0.18	4.18±1.41
控制	消极	3.94±1.40	0.87±0.13	6.89±1.09
控制	积极	3.53±1.36	0.82±0.14	6.74±1.05

[1]	阴晓娟, 林依, 贾丽娜, 王旭瑛, 夏尧远, 金花. 不诚实错误信息强度对人物印象的持续影响效应的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(6): 847-853.
[2]	金花, 贾丽娜, 单金磊. 相关度对老年人错误信息持续影响效应的影响：死亡态度和健康焦虑的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 389-395.
[3]	康廷虎；王沛. 信息的不同效价匹配对决策者职业决策行为的影响[J]. , 2011, 9(4): 247-250.
[4]	胡竹菁,朱丽萍. 推理结论正确性判定标准再探[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2003, 1(4): 248-251.