Abstract
Previous research established that readers acquire accurate and inaccurate information from fiction. The current study explored factors that might moderate these effects. Participants read fictional stories that each contained three assertions. The first two assertions in each story were either correct information or implausible misinformation, allowing a manipulation of the (implicit) credibility of the narrator. The last assertion in each story was the critical one, and was correct information, implausible misinformation, or plausible misinformation. After reading, participants answered general knowledge questions that were related to the critical assertions they encountered during reading. Encountering misinformation led to lower accuracy than being presented with correct information, and being presented with plausible misinformation led to higher production of that misinformation. The narrator credibility manipulation interacted with the type of critical assertion: When the critical assertion was presented accurately in a story, credible narrators presenting true critical assertions led to greater accuracy on the general knowledge test than when noncredible narrators presented this same information. These findings are discussed with respect to theories of validation during language comprehension.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data collected and analyzed as part of the current study are available on the Open Science Framework website at https://osf.io/m3hu4/.
References
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
Butler, A. C., Zaromb, F. M., Lyle, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Using popular films to enhance classroom learning: The good, the bad, and the interesting. Psychological Science, 20(9), 1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02410.x
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(4), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3
Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during narrative text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 26–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855107
Crichton, M. (2004). State of fear. HarperCollins.
Dodd, D. H., & Bradshaw, J. M. (1980). Leading questions and memory: Pragmatic constraints. Journal of Verbal and Learning Behavior, 19(6), 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90379-5
Echterhoff, G., Hirst, W., & Hussy, W. (2005). How eyewitnesses resist misinformation: Social postwarnings and the monitoring of memory characteristics. Memory & Cognition, 33(5), 770–782. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193073
Fazio, L. K., Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., Ornstein, P. A., & Marsh, E. (2013). Creating illusions of knowledge: Learning errors that contradict prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028649
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2019). An R companion to applied regression. Sage.
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.2.107
Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychological Review, 91(1), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.1.1
Golden, A. (1997). Memoirs of a geisha. Alfred A. Knopf.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
Henkel, L. A., & Mattson, M. E. (2011). Reading is believing: The truth effect of source credibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(4), 1705–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018
Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93(4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.411
Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., Horton, W. S., Jenkins, R., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0359-9
Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003
Jacovina, M. E., Hinze, S. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Fool me twice: The consequences of reading (and rereading) inaccurate information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(4), 558–568. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3035
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(1), 54–69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
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 and Language, 32(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1001
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction- integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028
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(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
Loftus, E. J. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 560–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90023-7
Marsh, E. J. (2004). Story stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 650–655. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206546
Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1140–1149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193260
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00092-5
Metcalfe Eich, J. (1982). A composite holographic associative recall model. Psychological Review, 89(6), 627–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.6.627
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26(2–3), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545042
O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Separating the activation, integration, and validation components of reading. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 65, pp. 249–276). Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2016.03.004
Park, H., & Reder, L. M. (2004). Moses illusion. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment, and memory (pp. 275–292). Psychology Press.
R Core Team (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 688–701. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.688
Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ trait-based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 737–750. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2789
Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Amazing stories: Acquiring and avoiding inaccurate information from fiction. Discourse Processes, 51(1–2), 50–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.855048
Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
Reder, L. M., & Kusbit, G. W. (1991). Locus of the Moses illusion: Imperfect encoding, retrieval, or match? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(4), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90013-A
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 31(4), 574–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.11.003
Sonia, A. N., & O’Brien, E. J. (2021). Text-based manipulation of the coherence threshold. Discourse Processes, 58(5–6), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2021.1927596
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021331
Tauber, S. K., Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Rhodes, M. G., & Sitzman, D. M. (2013). General knowledge norms: Updated and expanded from the Nelson and Narens (1980) norms. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1115–1143. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0307-9
Williams, C. R., Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2018). Validating semantic illusions: Competition between context and general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(9), 1414–1429. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000526
Author note
Portions of these data were reported as part of a master's thesis conducted at the University of Arkansas by ARH under the direction of WHL and at the (virtual) 62nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in 2021.
We thank Luke McClanahan and Grace Peterson for their assistance with stimulus preparation. ARH's committee members, Jim Lampinen and Darya Zabelina, provided very helpful feedback on this research. Scott Hinze kindly shared materials from Hinze et al. (2014).
This study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework website on January 29, 2021 and can be found at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/36DZ8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open practices statement
The data, analysis, and materials for this study were preregistered and are available on the Open Science Framework at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/36DZ8.
Appendix
Appendix
In the sample story below, the manipulated assertions are in bold. The first two assertions are the setup assertions that were intended to establish the narrator as credible or noncredible. The last, critical assertion is the one that was tested on the general knowledge test.
When Frank suggested I join him on a cruise, I was picturing a big ship, lots of polite waiters in white uniforms, and dinners that require semi-formal spangled gowns. Then he told me that it would be a private cruise, on his own personal boat. Even better, I thought, a man with his own yacht! So, I agreed to go.
When the big day arrived, I met up with Frank and we headed straight to the docks. I scanned the boats, trying to figure out which one was his. Just when I decided this great big white and shiny one must be his boat, he stopped at the dinkiest, dirtiest, little tub of a boat.
“Here she is! I wanted to name her the Atlantis [credible] / Avalon [noncredible] after the mythical island that sunk into the sea, but instead she’s the Mayflower [credible] / Titanic [noncredible], unfortunately named after the pilgrim’s boat – my grandmother chose the name because she’s a direct descendent!” Chuckling, Frank jumped onto the rat-trap and started whistling away as he hoisted the sails.
I was just standing on the dock, staring blankly. I couldn’t believe Frank expected me to climb onto that dirty vessel. Part of me wanted to march right back to the airport and fly back to Boston, but I kept thinking about how I told everyone at work what a fabulous private cruise I was going to have with a special, wealthy, eligible bachelor.
I got on the boat and ended up sitting in the cabin for hours while Frank prepared the boat. The cabin was tiny, with two berths, and it looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in months, maybe even years. Finally, I laid on a bunk and drifted off to sleep.
When I awoke, it was late. The boat was rocking gently. I was about to let it rock me back to sleep when the door opened and Frank came in. He looked completely pleased with himself and he started rambling about the sea, but I was just too sleepy to follow his conversation. He kept talking, and I was so sleepy that I was sure I must have misheard him –
“Frank – wait, slow down, I’m half-asleep. What did you say? What was that reference to Greenland?”
“I’m describing the course to you. First stop will be Halifax, then Newfoundland, then up to Greenland, then Iceland.”
“WHAT? Halifax?? Where is Halifax?? What happened to Miami Beach?” I shrieked.
“Miami Beach?” Frank genuinely sounded puzzled. “I never said we were going to Miami Beach. One day I want to cross the Pacific [correct] / Atlantic [plausible] / Red Sea [implausible], the world’s largest ocean, and this trip to Iceland seems like a good warm-up to that goal. I want to see how my skills are and how the boat holds up. It’ll be the perfect training.”
I let Frank know I was tired, so he went to sleep. It took me a long time to fall asleep that night, I was so upset and because the motions of the boat kept waking me up. Obviously, I don’t need to explain the rest of the trip, it was horrible, and I never saw Frank again after the “cruise.” Maybe next time I should get to know a guy better before agreeing to travel the seas with him.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Houts, A.R., Levine, W.H. The impact of implicit narrator reliability on production of information. Mem Cogn 52, 390–400 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01468-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01468-6