Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.

Fake news can have enduring effects on memory and beliefs. An ongoing theoretical debate has investigated whether corrections (fact-checks) should include reminders of fake news. The familiarity backfire account proposes that reminders hinder correction (increasing interference), whereas integration-based accounts argue that reminders facilitate correction (promoting memory integration). In three experiments, we examined how different types of corrections influenced memory for and belief in news headlines. In the exposure phase, participants viewed real and fake news headlines. In the correction phase, participants viewed reminders of fake news that either reiterated the false details (complete) or prompted recall of missing false details (partial); reminders were followed by fact-checked headlines correcting the false details. Both reminder types led to proactive interference in memory for corrected details, but complete reminders produced less interference than partial reminders (Experiment 1). However, when participants had fewer initial exposures to fake news and experienced a delay between exposure and correction, this effect was reversed; partial reminders led to proactive facilitation, enhancing correction (Experiment 2). This effect occurred regardless of the delay before correction (Experiment 3), suggesting that the effects of partial reminders depend on the number of prior fake news exposures. In all experiments, memory and perceived accuracy were better when fake news and corrections were recollected, implicating a critical role for integrative encoding. Overall, we show that when memories of fake news are weak or less accessible, partial reminders are more effective for correction; when memories of fake news are stronger or more accessible, complete reminders are preferable.

Scenario-Based Messages on Social Media Motivate COVID-19 Information Seeking.

Communicating information about health risks empowers individuals to make informed decisions. To identify effective communication strategies, we manipulated the specificity, self-relevance, and emotional framing of messages designed to motivate information seeking about COVID-19 exposure risk. In Study 1 (N=221,829), we conducted a large-scale social media field study. Using Facebook advertisements, we targeted users by age and political attitudes. Episodic specificity drove engagement: Advertisements that contextualized risk in specific scenarios produced the highest click-through rates, across all demographic groups. In Study 2, we replicated and extended our findings in an online experiment (N=4,233). Message specificity (but not self-relevance or emotional valence) drove interest in learning about COVID-19 risks. Across both studies, we found that older adults and liberals were more interested in learning about COVID-19 risks. However, message specificity increased engagement across demographic groups. Overall, evoking specific scenarios motivated information seeking about COVID-19, facilitating risk communication to a broad audience.

Communicating COVID-19 exposure risk with an interactive website counteracts risk misestimation.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals depended on risk information to make decisions about everyday behaviors and public policy. Here, we assessed whether an interactive website influenced individuals' risk tolerance to support public health goals. We collected data from 11,169 unique users who engaged with the online COVID-19 Event Risk Tool (https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/) between 9/22/21 and 1/22/22. The website featured interactive elements, including a dynamic risk map, survey questions, and a risk quiz with accuracy feedback. After learning about the risk of COVID-19 exposure, participants reported being less willing to participate in events that could spread COVID-19, especially for high-risk large events. We also uncovered a bias in risk estimation: Participants tended to overestimate the risk of small events but underestimate the risk of large events. Importantly, even participants who voluntarily sought information about COVID risks tended to misestimate exposure risk, demonstrating the need for intervention. Participants from liberal-leaning counties were more likely to use the website tools and more responsive to feedback about risk misestimation, indicating that political partisanship influences how individuals seek and engage with COVID-19 information. Lastly, we explored temporal dynamics and found that user engagement and risk estimation fluctuated over the course of the Omicron variant outbreak. Overall, we report an effective large-scale method for communicating viral exposure risk; our findings are relevant to broader research on risk communication, epidemiological modeling, and risky decision-making.

Instructed motivational states bias reinforcement learning and memory formation.

Motivation influences goals, decisions, and memory formation. Imperative motivation links urgent goals to actions, narrowing the focus of attention and memory. Conversely, interrogative motivation integrates goals over time and space, supporting rich memory encoding for flexible future use. We manipulated motivational states via cover stories for a reinforcement learning task: The imperative group imagined executing a museum heist, whereas the interrogative group imagined planning a future heist. Participants repeatedly chose among four doors, representing different museum rooms, to sample trial-unique paintings with variable rewards (later converted to bonus payments). The next day, participants performed a surprise memory test. Crucially, only the cover stories differed between the imperative and interrogative groups; the reinforcement learning task was identical, and all participants had the same expectations about how and when bonus payments would be awarded. In an initial sample and a preregistered replication, we demonstrated that imperative motivation increased exploitation during reinforcement learning. Conversely, interrogative motivation increased directed (but not random) exploration, despite the cost to participants' earnings. At test, the interrogative group was more accurate at recognizing paintings and recalling associated values. In the interrogative group, higher value paintings were more likely to be remembered; imperative motivation disrupted this effect of reward modulating memory. Overall, we demonstrate that a prelearning motivational manipulation can bias learning and memory, bearing implications for education, behavior change, clinical interventions, and communication.

Reasons for Receiving or Not Receiving Bivalent COVID-19 Booster Vaccinations Among Adults - United States, November 1-December 10, 2022.

Bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccines, developed to protect against both ancestral and Omicron BA.4/BA.5 variants, are recommended to increase protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease* (1,2). However, relatively few eligible U.S. adults have received a bivalent booster dose (3), and reasons for low coverage are unclear. An opt-in Internet survey of 1,200 COVID-19-vaccinated U.S. adults was conducted to assess reasons for receiving or not receiving a bivalent booster dose. Participants could select multiple reasons from a list of suggested reasons to report why they had or had not received a bivalent booster dose. The most common reasons cited for not receiving the bivalent booster dose were lack of awareness of eligibility for vaccination (23.2%) or of vaccine availability (19.3%), and perceived immunity against infection (18.9%). After viewing information about eligibility and availability, 67.8% of participants who had not received the bivalent booster dose indicated that they planned to do so; in a follow-up survey 1 month later, 28.6% of these participants reported having received the dose. Among those who had planned to receive the booster dose but had not yet done so, 82.6% still intended to do so. Participants who had still not received the booster dose most commonly reported being too busy to get vaccinated (35.6%). To help increase bivalent booster dose coverage, health care and public health professionals should use evidence-based strategies to convey information about booster vaccination recommendations and waning immunity (4), while also working to increase convenient access.

Prediction errors disrupt hippocampal representations and update episodic memories.

The brain supports adaptive behavior by generating predictions, learning from errors, and updating memories to incorporate new information. Prediction error, or surprise, triggers learning when reality contradicts expectations. Prior studies have shown that the hippocampus signals prediction errors, but the hypothesized link to memory updating has not been demonstrated. In a human functional MRI study, we elicited mnemonic prediction errors by interrupting familiar narrative videos immediately before the expected endings. We found that prediction errors reversed the relationship between univariate hippocampal activation and memory: greater hippocampal activation predicted memory preservation after expected endings, but memory updating after surprising endings. In contrast to previous studies, we show that univariate activation was insufficient for understanding hippocampal prediction error signals. We explain this surprising finding by tracking both the evolution of hippocampal activation patterns and the connectivity between the hippocampus and neuromodulatory regions. We found that hippocampal activation patterns stabilized as each narrative episode unfolded, suggesting sustained episodic representations. Prediction errors disrupted these sustained representations and the degree of disruption predicted memory updating. The relationship between hippocampal activation and subsequent memory depended on concurrent basal forebrain activation, supporting the idea that cholinergic modulation regulates attention and memory. We conclude that prediction errors create conditions that favor memory updating, prompting the hippocampus to abandon ongoing predictions and make memories malleable.

Pairing facts with imagined consequences improves pandemic-related risk perception.

The COVID-19 pandemic reached staggering new peaks during a global resurgence more than a year after the crisis began. Although public health guidelines initially helped to slow the spread of disease, widespread pandemic fatigue and prolonged harm to financial stability and mental well-being contributed to this resurgence. In the late stage of the pandemic, it became clear that new interventions were needed to support long-term behavior change. Here, we examined subjective perceived risk about COVID-19 and the relationship between perceived risk and engagement in risky behaviors. In study 1 (n = 303), we found that subjective perceived risk was likely inaccurate but predicted compliance with public health guidelines. In study 2 (n = 735), we developed a multifaceted intervention designed to realign perceived risk with actual risk. Participants completed an episodic simulation task; we expected that imagining a COVID-related scenario would increase the salience of risk information and enhance behavior change. Immediately following the episodic simulation, participants completed a risk estimation task with individualized feedback about local viral prevalence. We found that information prediction error, a measure of surprise, drove beneficial change in perceived risk and willingness to engage in risky activities. Imagining a COVID-related scenario beforehand enhanced the effect of prediction error on learning. Importantly, our intervention produced lasting effects that persisted after a 1- to 3-wk delay. Overall, we describe a fast and feasible online intervention that effectively changed beliefs and intentions about risky behaviors.

Imagining a Personalized Scenario Selectively Increases Perceived Risk of Viral Transmission for Older Adults.

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a serious and prolonged public-health emergency. Older adults have been at substantially greater risk of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death due to COVID-19; as of February 2021, over 81% of COVID-19-related deaths in the U.S. occurred for people over the age of 651,2. Converging evidence from around the world suggests that age is the greatest risk factor for severe COVID-19 illness and for the experience of adverse health outcomes3,4. Therefore, effectively communicating health-related risk information requires tailoring interventions to older adults' needs5. Using a novel informational intervention with a nationally-representative sample of 546 U.S. residents, we found that older adults reported increased perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission after imagining a personalized scenario with social consequences. Although older adults tended to forget numerical information over time, the personalized simulations elicited increases in perceived risk that persisted over a 1-3 week delay. Overall, our results bear broad implications for communicating information about health risks to older adults, and they suggest new strategies to combat annual influenza outbreaks.

Closed-minded cognition: Right-wing authoritarianism is negatively related to belief updating following prediction error.

When confronted with information that challenges our beliefs, we must often learn from error in order to successfully navigate the world. Past studies in reinforcement learning and educational psychology have linked prediction error, a measure of surprise, to successful learning from feedback. However, there are substantial individual differences in belief-updating success, and the psychological factors that influence belief updating remain unclear. Here, we identify a novel factor that may predict belief updating: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), which is characterized by a desire for order, structure, and preservation of social norms. We hypothesized that because people who score high on RWA are motivated to preserve entrenched beliefs, they may often fail to successfully update their beliefs when confronted with new information. Using a novel paradigm, we challenged participants' false beliefs and misconceptions to elicit prediction error. In two studies, we found consistent evidence that high-RWA individuals were less successful at correcting their false beliefs. Relative to low-RWA individuals, high-RWA individuals were less likely to revise beliefs in response to prediction error. We argue that RWA is associated with a relatively closed-minded cognitive style that negatively influences belief updating.

Intellectual humility and perceptions of political opponents.

OBJECTIVE: Intellectual humility (IH) refers to the recognition that personal beliefs might be wrong. We investigate possible interpersonal implications of IH for how people perceive the intellectual capabilities and moral character of their sociopolitical opponents and for their willingness to associate with those opponents. METHOD: In four initial studies (N = 1,926, Mage  = 38, 880 females, 1,035 males), we measured IH, intellectual and moral derogation of opponents, and willingness to befriend opponents. In two additional studies (N = 568, Mage  = 40, 252 females, 314 males), we presented participants with a specific opponent on certain sociopolitical issues and several social media posts from that opponent in which he expressed his views on the issue. We then measured IH, intellectual, and moral derogation of the opponent, participants' willingness to befriend the opponent, participants' willingness to "friend" the opponent on social media, and participants' willingness to "follow" the opponent on social media. RESULTS: Low-IH relative to high-IH participants were more likely to derogate the intellectual capabilities and moral character of their opponents, less willing to befriend their opponents, and less willing to "friend" and "follow" an opponent on social media. CONCLUSIONS: IH may have important interpersonal implications for person perception, and for understanding social extremism and polarization.

Prediction Error and Memory Reactivation: How Incomplete Reminders Drive Reconsolidation.

Memories are readily distorted. What conditions allow memories to be altered? Converging evidence implicates prediction error, or surprise, as a key mechanism that renders memories malleable. Recent reconsolidation studies have used incomplete reminders to elicit prediction error; retrieval cues that partially replicate an encoding experience allow memories to be distorted, updated, and strengthened. Here, we review diverse evidence that incomplete reminders govern human memory updating, ranging from classical conditioning to naturalistic episodes. Through the unifying theme of predictive coding, we discuss evidence from reconsolidation theory and nonmonotonic plasticity. We argue that both animal and human reconsolidation research can benefit from critically examining prediction error and incomplete reminders. These findings bear implications for pathological fear memories, false memories, misinformation, and education.

Surprise and destabilize: prediction error influences episodic memory reconsolidation.

Through the process of "reconsolidation," reminders can temporarily destabilize memories and render them vulnerable to change. Recent rodent research has proposed that prediction error, or the element of surprise, is a key component of this process; yet, this hypothesis has never before been extended to complex episodic memories in humans. In our novel paradigm, we used naturalistic stimuli to demonstrate that prediction error enables adaptive updating of episodic memories. In Study 1, participants (N = 48) viewed 18 videos, each depicting an action-outcome event. The next day, we reactivated these memories by presenting the videos again. We found that incomplete reminders, which interrupted videos before the outcome, made memories vulnerable to subsequent interference from a new set of videos, producing false memories. In Study 2 (N = 408), an independent sample rated qualities of the stimuli. We found that videos that were more surprising when interrupted produced more false memories. Last, in Study 3 (N = 24), we tested competing predictions of reconsolidation theory and the Temporal Context Model, an alternative account of source confusion. Consistent with the mechanistic time-course of reconsolidation, our effects were crucially time-dependent. Overall, we synthesize prior animal and human research to present compelling evidence that prediction error destabilizes episodic memories and drives dynamic updating in the face of new information.