Memory & Cognition

, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp 1140–1149 | Cite as

Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories

Article

Abstract

Readers rely on fiction as a source of information, even when fiction contradicts relatively wellknown facts about the world (Marsh, Meade, & Roediger, 2003). Of interest was whether readers could monitor fiction for errors, in order to reduce suggestibility. In Experiment 1, warnings about errors in fiction did not reduce students’ reliance on stories. In Experiment 2, all subjects were warned before reading stories written at 6th- or 12th-grade reading levels. Even though 6th-grade stories freed resources for monitoring, suggestibility was not reduced. In Experiment 3, suggestibility was reduced but not eliminated when subjects pressed a key each time they detected an error during story reading. Readers do not appear to spontaneously monitor fiction for its veracity, but can do so if reminded on a trial-by-trial basis.

References

  1. Baker, L. (1985). Differences in the standards used by college students for evaluating their comprehension of expository prose.Reading Research Quarterly,20, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, L., &Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination.Memory & Cognition,15, 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barton, S. B., &Sanford, A. J. (1993). A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.Memory & Cognition,21, 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Begg, I. A., Anas, A., &Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,121, 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bower, G. H., &Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension.Science,247, 44–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, K. L., &Zaragoza, M. S. (2001). Intended and unintended effects of explicit warnings on eyewitness suggestibility: Evidence from source identification tests.Memory & Cognition,29, 1120–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coleridge, S. T. (1906).Biographia literaria. London: J. Dent. (Original work published 1817)Google Scholar
  8. Dubeck, L. W., Moshier, S. E., &Boss, J. E. (1988).Science in cinema: Teaching science fact through science fiction films. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Emmerich, R. (Director) (2000).The patriot [Motion picture]. Columbia Pictures.Google Scholar
  10. Erickson, T. D., &Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 540–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallo, D. A., Roediger, H. L., III, &McDermott, K. B. (2001). Associative false recognition occurs without strategic criterion shifts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 579–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerrig, R. J. (1989). Suspense in the absence of uncertainty.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 633–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds: On the psychological activities of reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe.American Psychologist,46, 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., &Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension.Memory & Cognition,10, 597–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, M. C., &Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,79, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greene, E., Flynn, M. S., &Loftus, E. F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,21, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective memory: When reminders fail.Memory & Cognition,26, 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., &Sheffield, F. D. (1949).Experiments on mass communication. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Inhoff, A. W., &Fleming, K. (1989). Probe-detection times during the reading of easy and difficult text.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,15, 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983).Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jonze, S. (Director) (1999).Being John Malkovich [Motion picture]. USA Films.Google Scholar
  23. Kelley, C. M., &Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Remembering mistaken for knowing: Ease of retrieval as a basis for confidence in answers to general knowledge questions.Journal of Memory & Language,32, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis, C. H., &Anderson, J. R. (1976). Interference with real world knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,8, 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source.Memory & Cognition,17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marsh, E. J. (2004). Story stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 650–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., &Roediger, H. L., III (2003). Learning facts from fiction.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 519–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meade, M. L., &Roediger, H. L., III (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory.Memory & Cognition,30, 995–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nelson, T. O., &Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,19, 338–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norwalk, L., Becker, A., & Fassino, D. (2004). ReadMe (Version 2.0) [Computer software]. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from www.cba.nau.edu/becker-a/Accessibility/ReadMe.html.Google Scholar
  31. Peterson, S. B., &Potts, G. R. (1985). Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prentice, D. A., &Gerrig, R. J. (1999). Exploring the boundary between fiction and reality. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.),Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 529–546). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  33. Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., &Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Spielberg, S. (Director) (1993).Jurassic Park [Motion picture]. Universal Pictures.Google Scholar
  35. Strange, J. J., &Leung, C. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 436–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., &Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information.Memory & Cognition,14, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wheeler, S. C., Green, M. C., &Brock, T. C. (1999). Fictional narratives change beliefs: Replications of Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis (1997) with mixed corroboration.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,6, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology and NeuroscienceDuke UniversityDurham

Personalised recommendations