WILL SPACING RETRACTIONS MODULATE THE CONTINUED INFLUENCE EFFECT?

<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>