How to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect: A meta-analysis of post-warning studies

By H. Blank, Céline Launay. 2014

94 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Four decades of research and hundreds of studies speak to the power of post-event misinformation to bias eyewitness accounts of events (see e.g., Loftus’ summary, 2005). A subset of this research has explored if the adverse influence of misinformation on remembering can be undone or at least reduced through a later warning about its presence. We meta-analyzed 25 such post-warning studies (including 155 effect sizes) to determine the effectiveness of different types of warnings and to explore moderator effects. Key findings were that (1) post-warnings are surprisingly effective, reducing the misinformation effect to less than half of its size on average. (2) Some types of post-warning (following a theoretical classification) seem to be more effective than others, particularly studies using an enlightenment procedure ( Blank, 1998). (3) The post-warning reduction in the misinformation effect reflects a specific increase in misled performance (relative to no warning), at negligible cost for control performance. We conclude with a discussion of theoretical and practical implications.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/47b668916cb6fcbdcbece428e08541a9eb1ac5b9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation (2018, background): “For instance, while Blank and Launay ’ s (2014) meta-analysis has provided insights into the misinformation effect, it was largely restricted to studies of post-warning and ways to protect eyewitness memory against mis-information.”
Fact-Checking: A Meta-Analysis of What Works and for Whom (2019, result): “…when directly contrasting the findings with results from recent meta-analyses that addressed the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation (Chan et al., 2017; Walter & Murphy, 2018) and ways to protect eyewitness memory against the misinformation effect (Blank & Launay, 2014).”
A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Continued Influence of Misinformation in the Face of Correction: How Powerful Is It, Why Does It Happen, and How to Stop It? (2019, background): “Past meta-analyses examining the effect of correction compared with uncorrected misinformation control conditions have found that corrective messages can, indeed, significantly reduce belief in misinformation (Blank & Launay, 2014; Walter & Murphy, 2018).”