week 10 Psyc

Retraction Research Report Ashley Rebeiro PSYC4600 Research Report Capella University June 2023

2 [Enter Paper Title] Introduction Misinformation is encountered daily and has become an issue within our society. Misinformation is spread through news, the media, the internet, or by another person. Once misinformation is spread, correcting or changing opinions is difficult, even if the correction is based on fact. Individuals tend to stick to what they know and recall information already in their memory. This paper will review literature that focuses on misinformation and the effects/consequences it instills in our society. Furthermore, this paper will discuss strategies for correcting misinformation and research conducted around these topics. Review of Literature Much research has been conducted into the effects of misinformation. Rapp & Salovich (2018) state that inaccuracies in fake news and misinformation can lead to problematic consequences regarding our decisions and problem-solving. Reading misinformation causes individuals to become confused, and they begin to doubt their general factual knowledge, in return causing doubt, confusion, and reliance. Misinformation can lead to false or distorted memories. Studying misinformation is essential to find interventions and technology in the spread of misinformation to help people make informed decisions about important life issues. Myth busting According to Pluviano et al. (2017) their research observed the effects of misinformation when vaccinating children. The belief of this research was that once misinformation was spread, it was difficult to change those memories, such as a correlation between vaccinations and autism. Even when remembering the information to be untrue, misinformation continues to be recalled in memory. Utilizing three different methods; myth vs. fact, presentation of fact/icon boxes, and

4 was not successful and that individuals who created arguments supporting the misinformation struggled to change beliefs. Berinsky 2017) conducted a study of debunking political rumors as an effective strategy. Berinsky (2017) argued that when a rumor is repeated or familiar, it continues to persist. The research concluded that using credibility to debunk misinformation and correction from the politician to correct the rumor was compelling. False Balance Cook et al. (2017) found that using inoculation was effective in combating misinformation during two studies. Researchers exposed people to information on climate change before exposing them to misinformation, and this method was productive in combating the negative influences of misinformation. Cook et al. (2017) also found that the "information in "false balance" decreased perceived consensus." Limitations Limitations of the current research on retraction in the study conducted by Greene & Murphy (2023) long-term effects of debriefing have yet to be studied and were only done in short intervals. Retractions were made immediately, and most of the time, individuals do not see corrections or retractions to misinformation as fast. Changing the time intervals may change the data of the study. Furthermore, the age range of the individuals and cognitive function could play a role in memory recall, given retraction. The backfire effect can cause limitations when individuals are faced with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, ignoring new evidence , and strengthening their prior belief of misinformation.

5 Hypothesis Retraction will not change the impacts of misinformation. Participants will still recall misinformation after reading an article where misinformation was later retracted. Variables The independent variable will be misinformation, as defined as information that is false but believed to be accurate. The dependent variable will be the recall of misinformation after retraction. Method Hypothesis Retraction will not change the impacts of misinformation. Participants will still recall misinformation after reading a news article containing misinformation, even though this information was later retracted. Sampling I will use the non-probability convivence sampling method because there are limits to participants in this study and all volunteer samples. I will recruit my sample from college students enrolled in PSYC4600, in an undergraduate program. Measures I will have participants read an article with misinformation and then an article with a retraction of the misinformation. In addition, I will use a one-question test measuring the amount of misinformation retained. The test is reliable in measuring the recall of misinformation after a retraction of false statements. The measure ensures validity through real-world retractions in

7 recalled. Another type of validity would be facing validity. Face validity can help assess whether a test is likely to measure an intended variable. In this case the test would be the questionnaire and the variable would be the recall of misinformation and whether that test measures appropriately. Sociocultural Considerations Due to the small sample size of volunteers, I do not feel this study has sociocultural considerations to consider. The small sample size is not very diverse. If the study could have been conducted outside of the classroom the demographic portion would include race, beliefs and values which may have given us a different outcome of the study. Another variable that may affect the outcome would be, participants are from the same class that have learned the effects of misinformation and retraction, so they will know the purpose of the study. Furthermore, this study is done in a short time, so a re-test is not likely. Re- testing could show misinformation recall after a period of time. A person who was able to remember the misinformation recalls that information as true later on. Results Participant Demographics I will use the non-probability convivence sampling method because there are limits to participants in this study and all volunteer samples in PSYC 4600. There were 12 willing participants (n=13) of those 13 participants all of them completed the questionnaire and demographic information. Of the sample comprised 83.33% were female and 16.67% were male. The mean of the participants age is 37.5.

8 Statistical Tests A chi-square test of impendence was performed to examine the relationship between retraction and recall of misinformation. A chi-squared test was performed due to one group sample being tested. Table Table1:1 Participan t Age Gender Test Results Donald daffy 1 51 female incorrec t Y 2 26 female incorrec t Y 3 30 male correct y 4 38 female correct y 5 31 female incorrec t y 6 55 female incorrec t y 7 25 female incorrec t y 8 33 female incorrec t y 9 33 female incorrec t y 10 53 male correct y 11 28 female correct y 12 47 female correct y Findings This study was not able to support the hypothesis that misinformation will continue to be recalled after retraction. Furthermore, this study has several limitations. First, the sample size was small of 12 participants. The sample was not diverse and made up of mostly females. The sampling method was non-probability convenience sampling. A post-test conducted later may have shown different results as well as a larger sample size.

10 Median 33 Mode 33 Standard Deviation 11.0247 7 Sample Variance 121.545 5 Kurtosis - 1.38077 Skewness 0.58542 3 Range 30 Minimum 25 Maximum 55 Sum 450 Count 12 Discussion The purpose of this study was to determine if people will recall misinformation after it is retracted. The study showed that of the 12 participants, 5 of the participants gave the correct answer after a retraction was made. Furthermore, 7 of the participants still chose the wrong answer after a retraction was given. A chi-square test of impendence was performed to examine the relationship between retraction and recall of misinformation. The relation of these variables was not statistically significant. X 2 (1, N=12) =0, p=1 This study was not able to support the hypothesis that retraction will not change the impacts of misinformation. Individuals will still recall misinformation after reading a news article containing misinformation, even though this information was later retracted. I expected the results to be significant and show retraction will not have an impact on misinformation. Ecker et al. (2017) studied a phenomenon known as the "continued-influence effect," relying on information even after it has been retracted. Researchers studied whether there was an increase or decrease in the continued-influence effect by integrating retractions in the

11 repetition of misinformation. This research was able to show that any type of retraction decreased reliance on misinformation compared to no retractions. There were many limitations to the current study, this can only be generalized by other students taking PSYC4600, this is where all participants volunteered from. The sample size was small and the non-probability convivence sampling was used. The participants were not diverse and 83.33% were female. Participants had prior knowledge of the study materials or completed other studies on retraction and could have impacted how they responded to the test. The sample was not representative of the population I was trying to study. Summary and Conclusion The current study of retraction on misinformation did not correlate with the research studies in the literature review. A larger sample size would be needed, and participants who did not have prior knowledge of the study materials. The sample would need to be more diverse, including more male participants and possibly a larger age range. Furthermore, a different method could yield different results, such as the presence of an experimental group and control group.

13 Salkind, N. J. (2016). Exploring Research (9th ed.). Pearson Learning Solutions. https://capella.vitalsource.com/books/9781323581315