Memory & Cognition

, Volume 38, Issue 8, pp 1087–1100 | Cite as

Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation

  • Ullrich K. H. EckerEmail author
  • Stephan LewandowskyEmail author
  • David T. W. Tang


Information that initially is presumed to be correct, but that is later retracted or corrected, often continues to influence memory and reasoning. This occurs even if the retraction itself is well remembered. The present study investigated whether the continued influence of misinformation can be reduced by explicitly warning people at the outset that they may be misled. A specific warning— giving detailed information about the continued influence effect (CIE)—succeeded in reducing the continued reliance on outdated information but did not eliminate it. A more general warning—reminding people that facts are not always properly checked before information is disseminated—was even less effective. In an additional experiment, a specific warning was combined with the provision of a plausible alternative explanation for the retracted information. This combined manipulation further reduced the CIE but still failed to eliminate it altogether.


False Memory False Recognition Mock Juror Inference Score Misinformation Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anastasi, J. S., Rhodes, M. G., & Burns, M. C. (2000). Distinguishing between memory illusions and actual memories using phenomenological measurements and explicit warnings. American Journal of Psychology, 113, 1–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belli, R. F., Lindsay, D. S., Gales, M. S., & McCarthy, T. T. (1994). Memory impairment and source misattribution in postevent misinformation experiments with short retention intervals. Memory & Cognition, 22, 40–54.Google Scholar
  4. Bush, J. G., Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). The implications of corrections: Then why did you mention it? In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 112–117). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Christiaansen, R. E., & Ochalek, K. (1983). Editing misleading information from memory: Evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Memory & Cognition, 11, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deese, J. (1959). On the prediction of occurrence of particular verbal intrusions in immediate recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 17–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eakin, D. K., Schreiber, T. A., & Sergent-Marshall, S. (2003). Misinformation effects in eyewitness memory: The presence and absence of memory impairment as a function of warning and misinformation accessibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 813–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., & Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33, 770–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Apai, J. (in press). Terrorists brought down the plane!— No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.Google Scholar
  11. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2010). Misinformation in memory: Effects of the encoding strength and strength of retraction. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215–1226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallo, D. A., Roberts, M. J., & Seamon, J. G. (1997). Remembering words not presented in lists: Can we avoid creating false memories? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldsmith, M., Koriat, A., & Weinberg-Eliezer, A. (2002). Strategic regulation of grain size in memory reporting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Hugenberg, K., Miller, J., & Claypool, H. M. (2007). Categorization and individuation in the cross-race recognition deficit: Toward a solution to an insidious problem. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 334–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, & Cognition, 20, 1420–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1998). Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1483–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1999). Modifying mental representations: Comprehending corrections. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 303–318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, S. D. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jou, J., & Foreman, J. (2007). Transfer of learning in avoiding false memory: The roles of warning, immediate feedback, and incentive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 877–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kintsch, W., & Greene, E. (1978). The role of culture-specific schemata in the comprehension and recall of stories. Discourse Processes, 1, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569–598.Google Scholar
  28. Landau, J. D., & von Glahn, N. (2004). Warnings reduce the magnitude of the imagination inflation effect. American Journal of Psychology, 117, 579–593.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Landler, M. (2008, December 26). Dollar shift: Chinese pockets filled as Americans’ emptied. The New York Times. Online version, titled “Chinese savings helped inflate American bubble,” retrieved November 11, 2009, from asia/26addiction.html?_r=1Google Scholar
  30. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16, 190–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2009). Misinformation and the “War on Terror”: When memory turns fiction into fact. In W. G. K. Stritzke, S. Lewandowsky, D. Denemark, J. Clare, & F. Morgan (Eds.), Terrorism and torture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 179–203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lindsay, D. S., & Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source. Memory & Cognition, 17, 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marini, A., Boewe, A., Caltagirone, C., & Carlomagno, S. (2005). Age-related differences in the production of textual descriptions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 439–463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McCabe, D. P., & Smith, A. D. (2002). The effect of warnings on false memories in young and older adults. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1065–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading postevent information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McDermott, K. B. (1996). The persistence of false memories in list recall. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 212–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III (1998). Attempting to avoid illusory memories: Robust false recognition of associates persists under conditions of explicit warnings and immediate testing. Journal of Memory & Language, 39, 508–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neuschatz, J. S., Benoit, G. E., & Payne, D. G. (2003). Effective warnings in the Deese/Roediger— McDermott false-memory paradigm: The role of identifiability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Neuschatz, J. S., Payne, D. G., Lampinen, J. M., & Toglia, M. P. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of warnings and the phenomenological characteristics of false memories. Memory, 9, 53–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Payne, B. K., Lambert, A. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2002). Best laid plans: Effects of goals on accessibility bias and cognitive control in race-based misperceptions of weapons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 384–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters, M. J. V., Jelicic, M., Gorski, B., Sijstermans, K., Giesbrecht, T., & Merckelbach, H. (2008). The corrective effects of warning on false memories in the DRM paradigm are limited to full attention conditions. Acta Psychologica, 129, 308–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rantzen, A., & Markham, R. (1992). The reversed eyewitness testimony design: More evidence for source monitoring. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roediger, H. L., III, & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 21, 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Saywitz, K. J., & Moan-Hardie, S. (1994). Reducing the potential for distortion of childhood memories. Consciousness & Cognition, 3, 408–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schul, Y., & Manzury, F. (1990). The effect of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring an invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337–349.Google Scholar
  50. Schwarz, N., Sanna, L. J., Skurnik, I., & Yoon, C. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seamon, J. G., Luo, C. R., Kopecky, J. J., Price, C. A., Rothschild, L., Fung, N. S., & Schwartz, M. A. (2002). Are false memories more difficult to forget than accurate memories? The effect of retention interval on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 1054–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seifert, C.M. (2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 41, pp. 265–292). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. van Oostendorp, H. (1996). Updating situation models derived from newspaper articles. Medienpsychologie, 8, 21–33.Google Scholar
  54. van Oostendorp, H., & Bonebakker, C. (1999). Difficulties in updating mental representations during reading news reports. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 319–339). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Warren, A., Hulse-Trotter, K., & Tubbs, E. C. (1991). Inducing resistance to suggestibility in children. Law & Human Behavior, 15, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Watson, J. M., McDermott, K. B., & Balota, D. A. (2004). Attempting to avoid false memories in the Deese/Roediger— McDermott paradigm: Assessing the combined influence of practice and warnings in young and old adults. Memory & Cognition, 32, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Westerberg, C. E., & Marsolek, C. J. (2006). Do instructional warnings reduce false recognition? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Williams, L. D. (2001). The discrepancy-attribution hypothesis: I. The heuristic basis of feelings of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 361–387.Google Scholar
  60. Wilkes, A. L., & Reynolds, D. J. (1999). On certain limitations accompanying readers’ interpretations of corrections in episodic text. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Zaragoza, M. S., & Koshmider, J. W. (1989). Misled subjects may know more than their performance implies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 246–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zaragoza, M. S., & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 934–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Psychology (M304)University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations