不诚实错误信息强度对人物印象的持续影响效应的作用

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.06.017

心理与行为研究 ›› 2024, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (6): 847-853.DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.06.017

不诚实错误信息强度对人物印象的持续影响效应的作用

阴晓娟¹, 林依², 贾丽娜³, 王旭瑛¹, 夏尧远⁴, 金花*^,¹()

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津师范大学心理学部，天津市学生心理健康与智能评估重点实验室，天津 300387
2. 华南师范大学科学研究院，广州 510006
3. 天津商业大学法学院，天津 300134
4. 浙江财经大学体育部，杭州 310018

收稿日期:2024-04-30 出版日期:2024-11-20 发布日期:2024-11-20
通讯作者: 金花
基金资助:
国家社会科学基金重大项目(20ZDA079)。

The Effect of Dishonest Misinformation Intensity on the Continued Influence Effect of Person Impressions

Xiaojuan YIN¹, Yi LIN², Lina JIA³, Xuying WANG¹, Yaoyuan XIA⁴, Hua JIN*^,¹()

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Student Mental Health and Intelligence Assessment, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387
2. Office of Scientific Research, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510006
3. School of Law, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134
4. Department of Physical Education, Zhejiang University of Finance & Economics, Hangzhou 310018

Received:2024-04-30 Online:2024-11-20 Published:2024-11-20
Contact: Hua JIN

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

关注不同强度的不诚实错误信息如何作用于人物印象的持续影响效应(CIE)有助于更好地应对新媒体时代下错误信息带来的挑战，维护整个社会的诚信体系。本研究采用人物行为清单范式考察了这一问题。实验1和实验2分别通过改变初始的不诚实错误信息的极端性或数量来操纵信息强度，结果发现：(1)负性错误信息对人物印象的特异性指标“诚实度”不存在错误信息持续影响效应，且这一结果不受错误信息强度的影响；(2)负性错误信息对人物印象的非特异性指标“喜爱度”存在错误信息持续影响效应，且这一效应仅发生在负性错误信息数量较多的条件下。结果表明，在道德的诚实维度内，负性错误信息对人物印象的持续影响效应较为复杂，既受具体印象指标的制约，也受具体强度因素操纵的影响。

关键词: 持续影响效应, 不诚实错误信息强度, 极端性, 数量, 人物印象

Abstract:

Investigating how the intensity of dishonest misinformation affects the continued influence effect (CIE) on person impressions contributes to address misinformation challenges in the new media era and preserving societal integrity. This study employed the person behavior inventory paradigm to examine this issue. In Experiments 1 and 2, the intensity of initial dishonest misinformation was manipulated by altering its extremity or quantity, respectively. The results were as follows: 1) Negative misinformation did not produce a CIE on the specific indicator of “honesty” in person impressions, which was not influenced by the intensity of the misinformation. 2) Negative misinformation produced a CIE on the non-specific indicator of “likability” in person impressions, but this effect only occurred when the quantity of negative misinformation was high. The findings indicate that within the moral dimension of honesty, the CIE of negative misinformation on person impressions is complex, as it is shaped by specific impression indicators and affected by variations in intensity.

Key words: continued influence effect, dishonest misinformation intensity, extremity, quantity, person impression

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.

Xiaojuan YIN, Yi LIN, Lina JIA, Xuying WANG, Yaoyuan XIA, Hua JIN. The Effect of Dishonest Misinformation Intensity on the Continued Influence Effect of Person Impressions[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(6): 847-853.

图/表 6

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- 354.
	Brambilla, M., Carraro, L., Castelli, L., & Sacchi, S. Changing impressions: Moral character dominates impression updating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2019, 82, 64- 73. DOI
	Cobb, M. D. (2007). Knowing the truth is not enough: The resilience of discredited information. Paper presented at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Portland, OR.
	Cohen, M. S., Halewicz, V., Yildirim, E., & Kable, J. W. Continued influence of false accusations in forming impressions of political candidates. PNAS Nexus, 2024, 3 (11): 490- 501. DOI
	Davidson, A. R., Yantis, S., Norwood, M., & Montano, D. E. Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1985, 49 (5): 1184- 1198. DOI
	De Keersmaecker, J., & Roets, A. ‘Fake news’: Incorrect, but hard to correct. The role of cognitive ability on the impact of false information on social impressions. Intelligence, 2017, 65, 107- 110. DOI
	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
	Ferrari, C., Vecchi, T., Todorov, A., & Cattaneo, Z. (2016). Interfering with activity in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex via TMS affects social impressions updating. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 16(4), 626–634.
	Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.
	Hofmann, W., Wisneski, D. C., Brandt, M. J., & Skitka, L. J. Morality in everyday life. Science, 2014, 345 (6202): 1340- 1343. DOI
	Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
	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.
	Kim, M. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Anzellotti, S., & Young, L. Theory of mind following the violation of strong and weak prior beliefs. Cerebral Cortex, 2021, 31 (2): 884- 898. DOI
	Leach, C. W., Bilali, R., & Pagliaro, S. (2015). Groups and morality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2: Group processes (pp. 123–149). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
	Mickelberg, A., Walker, B., Ecker, U., Howe, P. D. L., Perfors, A., & Fay, N. Does mud really stick? No evidence for continued influence of misinformation on newly formed person impressions. Collabra: Psychology, 2024, 10 (1): 92332. DOI
	Reeder, G. D., & Coovert, M. D. Revising an impression of morality. Social Cognition, 1986, 4 (1): 1- 17. DOI
	Reysen, S. Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 2005, 33 (2): 201- 208. DOI
	Shen, X., Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. Beware a dishonest face?: Updating face-based implicit impressions using diagnostic behavioral information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2020, 86, 103888. DOI
	Thorson, E. Belief echoes: The persistent effects of corrected misinformation. Political Communication, 2016, 33 (3): 460- 480. DOI
	Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 1988, 40 (2): 361- 387. DOI
	Willis, J., & Todorov, A. First impressions: Making up your mind after a 100 ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 2006, 17 (7): 592- 598. DOI
	Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 2000, 107 (1): 101- 126. DOI

指标	轻度不诚实	重度不诚实
不诚实强度	4.45±1.47	6.41±0.73
不诚实相关性	4.73±1.45	6.64±0.66
判断性	3.95±1.70	6.45±0.80

指标	轻度不诚实	重度不诚实
不诚实强度	4.45±1.47	6.41±0.73
不诚实相关性	4.73±1.45	6.64±0.66
判断性	3.95±1.70	6.45±0.80

因变量指标	控制组		无更正组		更正组
因变量指标	中性轻	中性重	轻	重	轻	重
再认测验	0.88(0.09)	0.91(0.09)	0.76(0.15)	0.80(0.13)	0.87(0.09)	0.85(0.07)
喜爱度评分	4.33(0.76)	4.10(0.73)	3.70(1.01)	3.48(0.90)	4.37(0.74)	3.84(0.78)
不诚实度评分	4.21(0.86)	3.58(0.84)	4.55(1.05)	4.90(1.37)	3.18(1.07)	4.12(1.45)

因变量指标	控制组		无更正组		更正组
因变量指标	中性轻	中性重	轻	重	轻	重
再认测验	0.88(0.09)	0.91(0.09)	0.76(0.15)	0.80(0.13)	0.87(0.09)	0.85(0.07)
喜爱度评分	4.33(0.76)	4.10(0.73)	3.70(1.01)	3.48(0.90)	4.37(0.74)	3.84(0.78)
不诚实度评分	4.21(0.86)	3.58(0.84)	4.55(1.05)	4.90(1.37)	3.18(1.07)	4.12(1.45)

指标	得分
不诚实强度	4.66±1.29
不诚实相关性	5.27±1.38
判断性	4.35±1.47

不诚实错误信息强度对人物印象的持续影响效应的作用

The Effect of Dishonest Misinformation Intensity on the Continued Influence Effect of Person Impressions

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 0

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	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.
[2]	赵冰洁, 何婕, 刘颖, 杨邵峰, 王峥, 张琪涵, 白学军. 凸显刺激对整体知觉集合数量效应的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(2): 212-219.
[3]	隋雪, 高璇, 李雨桐. 不同情境下儿童分配行为的年龄差异：资源价值与资源数量的作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(3): 328-335.
[4]	江盈颖, 马丽, 张丽锦, 朱莉琪. 子女数量与育龄母亲生活满意度的链式中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 651-656.
[5]	朱娜平, 王文平, 李丽琼, 刘雁伶. 数量让位价值：5～10岁儿童公平分配发展的“此消彼长”[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 233-239.
[6]	邱晨, 牛美心, 周新林, 杨涛. 四、七年级学生分数数量表征与数学学业成就的关系：分数概念理解的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 628-635.
[7]	刘鹏飞, 崔佳歆, 任维聪, 张志杰. 4～7岁儿童时间概念的获得方式[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 454-459.
[8]	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.
[9]	孙霁, 孙沛. 大小数量加工机制分离现象的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(1): 1-7.
[10]	张李斌, 张丽, 冯廷勇. 发展性计算障碍儿童的数感缺陷[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 512-519.
[11]	宗正, 李红霞, 司继伟. 心算形式对不同近似数量系统敏锐度儿童心算表现的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 505-511.
[12]	柳笛. 表面相似性与共享标签知识对智障儿童数量表征的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(4): 486-491.
[13]	毕翠华,黄希庭. 工作记忆在时间和空间心理联结中的调节作用^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(2): 181-185.
[14]	官群. 中文数量语义更多为上的空间动觉一致性效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2013, 11(5): 589-594.
[15]	毕翠华；黄希庭. 数目及其呈现方式在不同范围内对时间知觉的影响[J]. , 2013, 11(1): 16-23.

因变量指标	控制组		无更正组		更正组
因变量指标	1条中性	4条中性	1条负性	4条负性	1条负性	4条负性
再认测验	0.87(0.13)	0.85(0.12)	0.89(0.10)	0.93(0.07)	0.85(0.09)	0.91(0.08)
喜爱度评分	3.90(0.49)	4.13(0.44)	4.07(0.89)	2.92(0.65)	4.54(1.10)	3.49(1.05)
不诚实度评分	3.61(0.98)	3.83(0.92)	4.22(1.11)	4.44(1.34)	3.22(1.40)	4.44(1.54)

因变量指标	控制组		无更正组		更正组
因变量指标	1条中性	4条中性	1条负性	4条负性	1条负性	4条负性
再认测验	0.87(0.13)	0.85(0.12)	0.89(0.10)	0.93(0.07)	0.85(0.09)	0.91(0.08)
喜爱度评分	3.90(0.49)	4.13(0.44)	4.07(0.89)	2.92(0.65)	4.54(1.10)	3.49(1.05)
不诚实度评分	3.61(0.98)	3.83(0.92)	4.22(1.11)	4.44(1.34)	3.22(1.40)	4.44(1.54)