Memory & Cognition

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 292–304 | Cite as

Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation

  • Ullrich K. H. EckerEmail author
  • Stephan Lewandowsky
  • Olivia Fenton
  • Kelsey Martin


Misinformation—defined as information that is initially assumed to be valid but is later corrected or retracted—often has an ongoing effect on people’s memory and reasoning. We tested the hypotheses that (a) reliance on misinformation is affected by people’s preexisting attitudes and (b) attitudes determine the effectiveness of retractions. In two experiments, participants scoring higher and lower on a racial prejudice scale read a news report regarding a robbery. In one scenario, the suspects were initially presented as being Australian Aboriginals, whereas in a second scenario, a hero preventing the robbery was introduced as an Aboriginal person. Later, these critical, race-related pieces of information were or were not retracted. We measured participants’ reliance on misinformation in response to inferential reasoning questions. The results showed that preexisting attitudes influence people’s use of attitude-related information but not the way in which a retraction of that information is processed.


Misinformation Continued influence effect Attitudes Beliefs Motivated reasoning 


Author note

This research was facilitated by a Discovery Grant and an Australian Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Australian Research Council to the first author, and a Discovery Grant and a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council to the second author. We thank Charles Hanich and Devon Spaapen for research assistance, and Nic Fay for suggesting the stereotype-incongruent scenario used in Experiment 2. The lab Web address is

Supplementary material

13421_2013_358_MOESM1_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 19 kb)


  1. Aldy, J. E., Kotchen, M. J., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). Willingness to pay and political support for a US national clean energy standard. Nature Climate Change, 2, 596–599.CrossRefGoogle 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. Batson, C. D. (1975). Rational processing or rationalization? Effect of disconfirming information on a stated religious belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berinsky, A. J. (2012). Rumors, truths, and reality: A study of political misinformation. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  5. Bizer, G. Y., Tormala, Z. L., Rucker, D. D., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Memory-based versus on-line processing: Implications for attitude strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 646–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bjork, E. L., & Bjork, R. A. (1996). Continuing influences of to-be-forgotten information. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 176–196. doi: 10.1006/ccog.1996.0011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Casiday, R., Cresswell, T., Wilson, D., & Panter-Brick, C. (2006). A survey of UK parental attitudes to the MMR vaccine and trust in medical authority. Vaccine, 24, 177–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Devine, P., & Elliot, A. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton Trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Apai, J. (2011). Terrorists brought down the plane!—No, actually it was a technical fault: Processing corrections of emotive information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 283–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Chee, A. E. H. (2010). The components of working memory updating: An experimental decomposition and individual differences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 170–189.Google Scholar
  12. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Swire, B., & Chang, D. (2011). Correcting false information in memory: Manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 570–578. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0065-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087–1100. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.8.1087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ecker, U. K. H., Swire, B., & Lewandowsky, S. (in press). Correcting misinformation—A challenge for education and cognitive science. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fielding, K. S., Head, B. W., Laffan, W., Western, M., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2012). Australian politicians’ beliefs about climate change: Political partisanship and political ideology. Environmental Politics, 21, 712–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2010). When in doubt, shout! Paradoxical influences of doubt on proselytizing. Psychological Science, 21, 1701–1707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garrett, R. K., Nisbet, E. C., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking? The role of contextual cues and naïve theory. Journal of Communication, 63, 617–637. doi: 10.1111/jcom.12038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D., & Malone, P. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacks, J. Z., & Cameron, K. A. (2003). Strategies for resisting persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson, G. C. (2010). Perception, memory, and partisan polarization on the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 125, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or “cyberghettos?” A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, 1420–1436. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420 Google Scholar
  28. Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (in press). The Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kreitmann, N. (2006). Fantasy, fiction, and feelings. Metaphilosophy, 37, 605–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 569–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565–579. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.565 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lamont, P. (2007). Paranormal belief and the avowal of prior scepticism. Theory and Psychology, 17, 681–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loftus, E. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning and Memory, 12, 361–366. doi: 10.1101/lm.94705 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loken, B., & Hoverstad, R. (1985). Relationships between information recall and subsequent attitudes: Some exploratory findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2011). Opening the political mind? The effects of self-affirmation and graphical information on factual misperceptions. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  41. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51, 127–132. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e318279486b PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oberauer, K., & Vockenberg, K. (2009). Updating of working memory: Lingering bindings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 967–987. doi: 10.1080/17470210802372912 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pedersen, A., Attwell, J., & Heveli, D. (2005). Prediction of negative attitudes toward Australian asylum seekers: False beliefs, nationalism, and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pedersen, A., Beven, J. P., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Indigenous Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., Manturuk, K., & Powers, A. S. (2009). “There must be a reason”: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociological Inquiry, 79, 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ratzan, S. C. (2010). Editorial: Setting the record straight: Vaccines, autism, and The Lancet. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 237–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”? Political Psychology, 31, 563–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle 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. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 127–161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X Google Scholar
  51. Travis, S. (2010). CNN poll: Quarter doubt Obama was born in U.S. Retrieved from
  52. Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 40, 361–387. doi: 10.1080/02724988843000168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wimshurst, K., Marchetti, E., & Allard, T. (2004). Attitudes of criminal justice students to Australian indigenous people: Does higher education influence student perceptions? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15, 327–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Young, G. (2010). Virtually real emotions and the paradox of fiction: Implications for the use of virtual environments in psychological research. Philosophical Psychology, 23, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ullrich K. H. Ecker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stephan Lewandowsky
    • 1
  • Olivia Fenton
    • 1
  • Kelsey Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations