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

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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, L., &Wagner, J. L. (1987). Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination.Memory & Cognition,15, 247–255.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bower, G. H., &Morrow, D. G. (1990). Mental models in narrative comprehension.Science,247, 44–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  10. Erickson, T. D., &Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 540–551.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerrig, R. J. (1989). Suspense in the absence of uncertainty.Journal of Memory & Language,28, 633–648.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Guynn, M. J., McDaniel, M. A., &Einstein, G. O. (1998). Prospective memory: When reminders fail.Memory & Cognition,26, 287–298.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis, C. H., &Anderson, J. R. (1976). Interference with real world knowledge.Cognitive Psychology,8, 311–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lindsay, D. S., &Johnson, M. K. (1989). The eyewitness suggestibility effect and memory for source.Memory & Cognition,17, 349–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marsh, E. J. (2004). Story stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,36, 650–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., &Roediger, H. L., III (2003). Learning facts from fiction.Journal of Memory & Language,49, 519–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Meade, M. L., &Roediger, H. L., III (2002). Explorations in the social contagion of memory.Memory & Cognition,30, 995–1009.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  31. Peterson, S. B., &Potts, G. R. (1985). Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 107–118.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Spielberg, S. (Director) (1993).Jurassic Park [Motion picture]. Universal Pictures.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tousignant, J. P., Hall, D., &Loftus, E. F. (1986). Discrepancy detection and vulnerability to misleading postevent information.Memory & Cognition,14, 329–338.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth J. Marsh.

Additional information

This work was supported by a collaborative activity award from the James S. McDonnell foundation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marsh, E.J., Fazio, L.K. Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition 34, 1140–1149 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193260

Download citation

Keywords

  • Prospective Memory
  • False Memory
  • Detection Condition
  • Hard Question
  • Easy Question