Reduction of the Misinformation Effect by Arousal Induced After Learning

Misinformation introduced after events have already occurred causes errors in later retrieval. Based on literature showing that arousal induced after learning enhances delayed retrieval, we investigated whether post-learning arousal can reduce the misinformation effect. 251 participants viewed four short film clips, each followed by a retention test, which for some participants included misinformation. Afterward, participants viewed another film clip that was either arousing or neutral. One week later, the arousal group recognized significantly more veridical details and endorsed significantly fewer misinformation items than the neutral group. The findings suggest that arousal induced after learning reduced source confusion, allowing participants to better retrieve accurate details and to better reject misinformation

When Government Misleads US: Sending Misinformation as Protectionist Devices

In this paper, we examine the incentive of the home government to mislead home consumers by sending misinformation. We nd that positive misinformation on home products and negative misinformation on foreign products always increases the prot of the home rm, while when the marginal costs of home and foreign rms are the same, a small amount of positive misinformation decreases the consumer surplus. Moreover, when the home government maximizes home welfare, it chooses to send positive misinformation on the home product and negative misinformation on the foreign product. The stronger is the competition faced by the home rm, the greater is the amount of negative misinformation on the foreign product. By contrast, the optimal amount of misinformation on each product used to maximize world welfare is positive. We also demonstrate that trade liberalization can increases the incentive of the home government to send misinformation.Strategic misleading, misinformation, non-tari trade policies

\u3ci\u3eClimate, Complacency and American Culture: The Role of Narrative in the Era of the Misinformation Amid the Anthropocene\u3c/i\u3e

This article explores the relationship between climate misinformation campaigns and narratives in light of skepticism and denial of climate change in the era of the Anthropocene. Beginning in the earliest moments of human existence, this paper establishes the importance of narratives in the founding of modern humanity and how such foundational stories has led to our current Anthropogenic world. It goes on to examine misinformation created and funded by politically powerful foundations and companies that distorts the current discussions of climate change among the American public. In leu of the abundance of climate misinformation, this paper also analyzes how the complex emotions inherent in climate change can rationalize the blatant fallacies presented in misinformation campaigns and why they remain socially and politically salient. Given such emotional perils that are unequivocally intertwined with existing in a radically shifting climate, it is necessary to invoke a greater emotional response that overpowers the fear and anxiety that rationalizes the belief in misinformation. Grounded in such emotions inherent in the era of the Anthropocene, this paper argues that narratives and the art of storytelling, the very foundation of what it means to be human, are uniquely suited to convey the severity of climate change. They have the power to invoke an empathic response which works to reverse the hold misinformation has over a sector of the American public that drives climate change skepticism and denial

Regulating Misinformation

The government has responded to misleading advertising by banning it, engaging in counter-advertising and taxing the product. In this paper, we consider the social welfare effects of those different responses to misinformation. While misinformation lowers consumer surplus, its effect on social welfare is ambiguous. Misleading advertising leads to overconsumption but that may be offsetting the under-consumption associated with monopoly prices. If all advertising is misinformation then a tax or quantity restriction on advertising maximizes social welfare. Other policy interventions are inferior and cannot improve on a pure advertising tax. If it is impossible to tax misleading information without also taxing utility increasing advertising, then combining taxes or bans on advertising with other policies can increase welfare.

How Misinformation Spreads Through Twitter

While living in the age of information, an inherent drawback to such high exposure to content lends itself to the precarious rise of misinformation. Whether it is called “alternative facts,” “fake news,” or just incorrect information, because of its pervasiveness in nearly every political and policy discussion, the spread of misinformation is seen as one of the greatest challenges to overcome in the 21st century. As new technologies emerge, a major piece of both content creation and the perpetuation of misinformation are social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. As news events emerge, whether be a pandemic, a mass shooting, or an election campaign, it is difficult to divulge the facts from fiction when so many different “facts” appear. This study looks at 14,545,945 tweets generated in the wake of the 1 October mass shooting and its second anniversary to identify how much of the public response is fogged by information pollution, to identify what kind of misinformation is spread and how it spreads on Twitter and news coverage

False memory ≠ false memory: DRM errors are unrelated to the misinformation effect

The DRM method has proved to be a popular and powerful, if controversial, way to study 'false memories'. One reason for the controversy is that the extent to which the DRM effect generalises to other kinds of memory error has been neither satisfactorily established nor subject to much empirical attention. In the present paper we contribute data to this ongoing debate. One hundred and twenty participants took part in a standard misinformation effect experiment, in which they watched some CCTV footage, were exposed to misleading post-event information about events depicted in the footage, and then completed free recall and recognition tests. Participants also completed a DRM test as an ostensibly unrelated filler task. Despite obtaining robust misinformation and DRM effects, there were no correlations between a broad range of misinformation and DRM effect measures (mean r  = -.01). This was not due to reliability issues with our measures or a lack of power. Thus DRM 'false memories' and misinformation effect 'false memories' do not appear to be equivalent