No description available.

The aim of this research is to determine the extent to which the framing of information can reduce the persistence of misinformation. The overall research consists of two experiments of which the first has been conducted and is described in this paper. It investigates the strength of differently framed statements and the degree to which the regulatory focus fit the participants experienced influenced their preference for certain statements. 52 participants have completed the survey in which they were presented several statements containing the same facts but framed differently based on the principles of valence message framing. The research found the positive goal frame, positive valence frame and the company s original statement to be most effective. These statements will form the basis for the second experiment which aims to combine the different frames in such a manner that the continued influence effect will be reduced.

<p>Globally, the misinformation crisis exposed the need for cognitive researchers to</p> <p>investigate interventions that will mitigate the influence of misinformation within memory. One</p> <p>proposed solution is a retraction, whereby misinformation is indicated to be inaccurate. Previous</p> <p>studies have demonstrated that providing a retraction after misinformation may reduce references</p> <p>to misinformation. The continued reliance on misinformation even after it has been corrected is</p> <p>known as the continued influence effect (CIE). It is unclear whether repeated retractions and the</p> <p>spacing of repeated retractions can reduce the CIE. In the present study, two experiments were</p> <p>conducted to investigate whether spacing repeated retractions among news messages would be</p> <p>more effective at reducing the CIE compared to massing retractions. Both experiments exposed</p> <p>participants to a news story containing misinformation. Each experiment included four retraction</p> <p>conditions: no retraction, a single retraction, or repeated retractions that were spaced or massed.</p> <p>In Experiment 1, a single retraction reduced reliance on misinformation, but we did not observe</p> <p>an additional benefit of repeated retractions when there were two retractions. In Experiment 2, we</p> <p>provided participants with three repeated retractions. Using this stronger manipulation, repeated</p> <p>retractions reduced references to misinformation compared to a single retraction, but there was no</p> <p>benefit of spacing them out. Collectively, our results suggest that repeating corrective messages</p> <p>can help reduce references to misinformation, with no supporting evidence that it matters how</p> <p>the repetitions are organized.</p>

No description available.