Belief-consistent information is most shared despite being the least surprising.

In the classical information theoretic framework, information "value" is proportional to how novel/surprising the information is. Recent work building on such notions claimed that false news spreads faster than truth online because false news is more novel and therefore surprising. However, another determinant of surprise, semantic meaning (e.g., information's consistency or inconsistency with prior beliefs), should also influence value and sharing. Examining sharing behavior on Twitter, we observed separate relations of novelty and belief consistency with sharing. Though surprise could not be assessed in those studies, belief consistency should relate to less surprise, suggesting the relevance of semantic meaning beyond novelty. In two controlled experiments, belief-consistent (vs. belief-inconsistent) information was shared more despite consistent information being the least surprising. Manipulated novelty did not predict sharing or surprise. Thus, classical information theoretic predictions regarding perceived value and sharing would benefit from considering semantic meaning in contexts where people hold pre-existing beliefs.

Mechanisms in continued influence: The impact of misinformation corrections on source perceptions.

Research on the continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation has demonstrated that misinformation continues to influence people's beliefs and judgments even after it has been corrected. Although most theorizing about the CIE attempts to explain why corrections do not eliminate belief in and influences of the misinformation, the present research takes a different approach and focuses instead on why corrections do reduce belief in misinformation (even if not entirely). We examined how a correction can change perceptions of the original source of the misinformation and how these changes in perceptions can mediate continued influence effects. We also examined causal evidence linking manipulations of misinformation source perceptions to continued belief and misinformation-relevant inferential reasoning. Study 1 demonstrated that an external correction (i.e., a new source labeling misinformation as false) influences perceptions of the misinformation source, and these perceptions of the misinformation source then correlated with belief in the misinformation. Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1 and used source derogation to manipulate misinformation source perceptions and further lessen continued belief. Study 3 was a preregistered replication of previous results using new methodology. These studies suggest that perceptions of the misinformation source is one mechanism that can cause changes in belief in misinformation, and changes in the perception of a source can be achieved simply by correcting the source or through other means. This approach can be used to find other mechanisms responsible for reducing belief in misinformation.

How Attitudes Impact the Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation: The Mediating Role of Discomfort.

Past research suggests that people continue believing retracted misinformation more when it is consistent versus inconsistent with their attitudes. However, the psychological mechanism responsible for this phenomenon remains unclear. We predicted that retractions of attitude-consistent misinformation produce greater feelings of discomfort than retractions of attitude-inconsistent misinformation and that this discomfort predicts continued belief in and use of the misinformation. We report combined analyses across 10 studies testing these predictions. Seven studies (total N = 1,323) used a mediational framework and found that the more consistent misinformation was with participants' attitudes, the more discomfort was elicited by a retraction of the misinformation. Greater discomfort then predicted greater continued belief in the misinformation, which, in turn, predicted greater use of the misinformation when participants made relevant inferences. Three additional studies (total N = 574) utilized misattribution paradigms to demonstrate that the relation between discomfort and belief in misinformation is causal in nature.

The independent effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on retraction believability: The moderating role of vested interest.

Past research suggests that the trustworthiness of a source issuing a retraction of misinformation impacts retraction effectiveness, whereas source expertise does not. However, this prior research largely used expert sources who had a vested interest in issuing the retraction, which might have reduced the impact of those expert sources. We predicted that source expertise can impact a retraction's believability independent of trustworthiness, but that this is most likely when the source does not have a vested interest in issuing a retraction. Study 1 demonstrated that retractions from an expert source are believed more and lead to less continued belief in misinformation than retractions from an inexpert source while controlling for perceptions of trustworthiness. Additionally, Study 1 demonstrated that this only occurs when the source had no vested interest in issuing the retraction. Study 2 found similar effects using a design containing manipulations of both expertise and trustworthiness. These results suggest that source expertise can impact retraction effectiveness and that vested interest is a variable that is critical to consider when determining when this will occur.

Correcting misperceptions of gun policy support can foster intergroup cooperation between gun owners and non-gun owners.

Past research finds that a majority of gun and non-gun owners support key gun safety policies, yet gun owners tend to underestimate other gun owners' support for these policies. We predicted that these misperceptions of support might lead gun owners to view non-gun owners as being less similar to themselves, which might undermine intergroup cooperation to promote gun safety policies and fuel intergroup animosity. Importantly, we also predicted that correcting these misperceptions would be an effective way to reduce intergroup division and enhance intergroup cooperation. We tested these predictions across two studies in which participants were randomly assigned to read information designed to correct misperceptions of gun owner support or to read other, control information. Across both studies, we find that correcting gun owners' misperceptions of gun owner support for gun safety policies leads to greater perceptions of identity overlap between gun and non-gun owners, greater willingness to work with each other to promote gun safety policies, and less negative affect towards each other. This suggests that correcting gun owner misperceptions of gun owners' support for gun safety policies might be an effective intervention to facilitate intergroup cooperation to promote these policies. Therefore, efforts to promote gun safety policies might benefit from educating gun owners about the degree of support for these policies that already exists among gun owners. Doing so might present a simple and cost-effective way to mobilize gun owners in support of these policies.

The role of discomfort in the continued influence effect of misinformation.

Research examining the continued influence effect (CIE) of misinformation has reliably found that belief in misinformation persists even after the misinformation has been retracted. However, much remains to be learned about the psychological mechanisms responsible for this phenomenon. Most theorizing in this domain has focused on cognitive mechanisms. Yet some proposed cognitive explanations provide reason to believe that motivational mechanisms might also play a role. The present research tested the prediction that retractions of misinformation produce feelings of psychological discomfort that motivate one to disregard the retraction to reduce this discomfort. Studies 1 and 2 found that retractions of misinformation elicit psychological discomfort, and this discomfort predicts continued belief in and use of misinformation. Study 3 showed that the relations between discomfort and continued belief in and use of misinformation are causal in nature by manipulating how participants appraised the meaning of discomfort. These findings suggest that discomfort could play a key mechanistic role in the CIE, and that changing how people interpret this discomfort can make retractions more effective at reducing continued belief in misinformation.

Public Opinion Perceptions, Private Support, and Public Actions of US Adults Regarding Gun Safety Policy.

Importance: Despite broad public support for gun safety policies, minimal policy implementation has occurred. Objective: To investigate factors that encourage greater private support for and public action on gun safety policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three studies were conducted: a public opinion survey (Study 1) was conducted from January 8 to 22, 2019, and 2 experiments (Studies 2 and 3) were conducted from August 27 to October 17, 2019, and April 15 to 21, 2020, respectively. Adults living in the US were eligible to participate in Studies 1 and 3. Students 18 years and older participating in a research experience program were eligible to participate in Study 2. Study 1 was administered online by Ipsos, a market research company. A nationally representative sample of 1000 US adults was obtained from Ipsos' online KnowledgePanel, of whom 508 completed the public opinion survey. For Study 2, which was conducted in a university laboratory, 354 participants were recruited from a university research pool, all of whom completed the study. Study 3 was administered online by the market research company YouGov, which identified 727 US gun owners from its opt-in panel, from which it constructed a census-matched sample of 400 participants. Exposures: Participants read a statement about the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Content was manipulated as a 2 (corrective information vs no corrective information) × 2 (system changeable vs system not changeable) between-subjects factorial design with random assignment. The corrective information included polling data highlighting widespread support among gun owners for several gun safety policies. System changeable described gun safety policies passed by Florida's legislature. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were support for gun safety policies and public disclosure of support. Results: The 3 studies included a total of 1262 participants (Study 1: 508 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 47.7 [17.5] years; 261.9 women [51.6%]; 82.5 Hispanic [16.2%] and 60.3 Black [11.9%]; Study 2: 354 participants; mean [SD] age, 20.0 [2.3] years; 232 women [65.9%]; 100 Asian [28.3%] and 37 Black [10.5%]; Study 3: 400 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 52.1 [16.4] years; 187.3 women [46.8%]; 295.5 White [73.9%], 44.5 Hispanic [11.1%], and 32.4 Black [8.1%]). Study 1 found that 63% to 91% of gun owners and 83% to 93% of non-gun owners supported key gun safety policies, yet both groups significantly underestimated gun owners' support for these policies by between 12% and 31%. Studies 2 and 3 found that exposure to corrective information was associated with a small increase in support for 2 gun safety policies of between 4% and 15%, both in terms of participants' privately held beliefs and the beliefs they would be willing to share publicly. Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study found that many US adults failed to recognize that most gun owners support key gun safety policies. Correcting this misperception was associated with greater private and public support for gun safety policy.