↓ Skip to main content

The effect of testing can increase or decrease misinformation susceptibility depending on the retention interval

Overview of attention for article published in Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
The effect of testing can increase or decrease misinformation susceptibility depending on the retention interval
Published in
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41235-017-0081-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayanna K. Thomas, Leamarie T. Gordon, Paul M. Cernasov, John B. Bulevich

Abstract

Research has consistently demonstrated that testing prior to the presentation of misleading post-event information, within the context of a standard eyewitness misinformation paradigm, results in an increase in the misinformation effect. The present study investigated whether changes in misinformation susceptibility in the context of interim testing are affected by retention interval differences between misinformation presentation and final testing. Further, this study tested possible divergences in original and post-event learning between conditions where elaboration in processing of critical details was encouraged either indirectly, via interim testing, or directly, by visually emphasizing critical details. In two experiments, we compared three groups of participants. All participants were exposed to an event, presented with misleading post-event misinformation, and then given a final test on the original event. One group was given an interim test between the original event and the post-event synopsis. A second was presented with a post-event synopsis in which critical details were visually emphasized. A third group served as a baseline comparison group for which synopsis processing was not manipulated. All experimental phases occurred in a single session in Experiment 1. A 48-hour retention interval was inserted between the post-event synopsis and final test in Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, we found that interim testing and emphasizing critical details increased misinformation susceptibility as compared to that found in the standard misinformation group. In Experiment 2, misinformation susceptibility was reduced in the interim testing group. These results suggest that interim testing and emphasizing critical details influence the rate of original detail forgetting. At a longer retention interval, the benefits of testing in learning emerged.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 7 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 46%
Social Sciences 3 13%
Computer Science 2 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 8%
Unknown 6 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#19,125,393
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#299
of 332 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,923
of 441,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 332 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.