Endorsement Of Misinformation Research Articles

A Cross‐Cultural and Intra‐Cultural Investigation of the Misinformation Effect in Eyewitness Memory Reports

ABSTRACTThe culture in which individuals are socialised can play a role in shaping their eyewitness memory reports. Drawing on self‐construal theory, we examined cultural differences in the misinformation effect. In a mock witness paradigm, participants sampled from collectivistic (Ghana; n = 65) and individualistic (United Kingdom; n = 62) cultures were exposed to misleading post‐event information (PEI). Participants provided a free‐recall account and then completed a recognition task that included misinformation items. Cultural differences in misinformation endorsement were not observed in free recall. However, participants from the collectivistic culture endorsed more misleading items in the recognition task than those from the individualistic culture. We also found that in the respective cultures, individual‐level cultural orientation was related to the misinformation effect. These findings provide preliminary insights into the role of culture in susceptibility to misleading PEI and further highlight the importance of eliminating leading or suggestive questioning from investigative interviewing practices.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Misinformation Endorsement among a Sample of Native Spanish-Speakers in the US: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Research on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and misinformation endorsement among Spanish-speaking Americans is limited. This cross-sectional study used a Spanish-language survey from May-August 2021 among 483 Spanish speakers living in the US and Puerto Rico. We applied multivariable Poisson regression with robust error variances to assess the association between independent variables and binary outcomes for vaccine acceptance versus hesitance, as well as misinformation endorsement. Vaccine acceptance was associated with COVID-19 risk perception score (PR = 1.7 high vs. low perceived risk), opinion of government transparency (PR = 2.2 very transparent vs. not transparent), and trust in vaccine information (PR = 1.8 high vs. low). There was also an interaction between time spent on social media and social media as a main source of COVID-19 information (p = 0.0484). Misinformation endorsement was associated with opinion about government transparency (PR = 0.5 moderately vs. not transparent), trust in vaccine information (PR = 0.5 high vs. low trust), social media impact on vaccine confidence (PR = 2.1 decreased vs. increased confidence), distrust vaccines (PR = 1.9 distrust vs. trust), using vaccine information from Facebook (PR = 1.4 yes vs. no), and time spent on social media by those using social media as main source of COVID-19 vaccine information (p = 0.0120). Vaccine acceptance in respondents with high misinformation endorsement scores was 0.7 times those with low scores. These findings highlight the importance of effective information dissemination, the positive role of social media, and government transparency in boosting vaccine uptake among Spanish speakers in the US.

The role of mental representation in sharing misinformation online.

Fuzzy-trace theory (FTT) posits that people share misinformation online if it promotes gist mental representations, cuing motivationally relevant values. Most people value the truth. Thus, per FTT, people decide to share messages that they perceive as true. FTT also predicts that messages will be more effective if they communicate a simple gist. We test these predictions by examining the roles of mental representation and epistemic quality in decisions to share misinformative articles on Facebook across two experiments and two correlational studies. In Studies 1 and 2, we use Facebook data to test the hypothesis that gist proxies in text are associated with online sharing. In Study 3, we experimentally manipulate subjects' exposure to a gist-based intervention that explains why a misinformative article is false, a simple debunk stating only that the article is false (but not explaining why) and a verbatim condition providing relevant detailed information but allowing subjects to draw their own conclusions. We found that the gist condition decreased intentions to share misinformation. Finally, in Study 4, we replicated this finding and showed that the gist condition also reduces misinformation endorsement. Results provide support for FTT's predictions regarding reducing sharing and endorsement of misinformation on social media. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Buprenorphine misinformation and willingness to treat patients with opioid use disorder among primary care-aligned health care professionals

BackgroundBuprenorphine is a highly effective medication for opioid use disorder that is underused by health care professionals (HCPs). Medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) misinformation may be an important barrier to buprenorphine access, but most implementation strategies have aimed to reduce negative attitudes towards patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) rather than misinformation specific to buprenorphine use. In this study, we assessed the degree to which HCPs endorsed misinformation related to buprenorphine, and whether this is associated with willingness to provide care to patients with OUD.MethodsIn September-December of 2022, we surveyed HCPs practicing in Ohio (n = 409). Our primary outcomes included a previously validated 5-item measure of HCP willingness to treat patients with OUD, and three other measures of willingness. Our key independent variable was a study-developed 5-item measure of endorsement of misinformation related to buprenorphine, which assessed beliefs in buprenorphine’s efficacy in managing withdrawal symptoms and reducing overdose deaths as well as beliefs about the role of buprenorphine in achieving remission. We computed descriptive and bivariable statistics and fit regression models predicting each outcome of interest.ResultsOn average, HCPs scored 2.34 out of 5.00 (SD = 0.80) on the composite measure of buprenorphine misinformation. 48.41% of participants endorsed at least one piece of misinformation. The most endorsed items were that buprenorphine is ineffective at reducing overdose deaths (M = 2.75, SD =0 .98), and that its use substitutes one drug for another (M = 2.41, SD = 1.25). HCP endorsement of buprenorphine misinformation significantly and negatively predicted willingness to work with patients with OUD (b = − 0.34; 95% CI − 0.46, − 0.21); intentions to increase time spent with this patient population (b = − 0.36; 95% CI − 5.86, − 1.28); receipt of an X-waiver (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38, 0.77); and intention to get an X-waiver (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.33−0.94).ConclusionsMisinformation is common among HCPs and associated with lower willingness to treat patients with OUD. Implementation strategies to increase MOUD use among HCPs should specifically counter misinformation related to buprenorphine.Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05505227. Registered 17 August 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05505227

Endorsement of COVID-19 misinformation among criminal legal involved individuals in the United States: Prevalence and relationship with information sources.

Criminal legal system involvement (CLI) is a critical social determinant of health that lies at the intersection of multiple sources of health disparities. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbates many of these disparities, and specific vulnerabilities faced by the CLI population. This study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19-related misinformation, as well as its relationship with COVID-19 information sources used among Americans experiencing CLI. A nationally representative sample of American adults aged 18+ (N = 1,161), including a subsample of CLI individuals (n = 168), were surveyed in February-March 2021. On a 10-item test, CLI participants endorsed a greater number of misinformation statements (M = 1.88 vs. 1.27) than non-CLI participants, p < .001. CLI participants reported less use of government and scientific sources (p = .017) and less use of personal sources (p = .003) for COVID-19 information than non-CLI participants. Poisson models showed that use of government and scientific sources was negatively associated with misinformation endorsement for non-CLI participants (IRR = .841, p < .001), but not for CLI participants (IRR = .957, p = .619). These findings suggest that building and leveraging trust in important information sources are critical to the containment and mitigation of COVID-19-related misinformation in the CLI population.

Others (dis‐)endorse this so it must (not) be true: High relative endorsement increases perceived misinformation veracity but not correction effectiveness

AbstractPeople increasingly rely on social‐media platforms to access information; thus, understanding how platform characteristics influence belief in misinformation is important. Recent findings indicate perceived social endorsement of information (e.g., number of likes) can influence misinformation belief and correction acceptance. However, how the influence of endorsement may be modulated by concurrent disendorsement information (e.g., dislikes) is unclear. Across two experiments, we assessed the influence of relative endorsement on misinformation belief and correction acceptance. Experiment 1 exposed participants to claims and fact‐checks with a high or low likes‐to‐dislikes ratio. Experiment 2 simplified the relative‐endorsement information into a single value (i.e., a percentage). Results suggest high relative social endorsement of misinformation significantly increases misinformation belief, particularly when the endorsement information is presented as a single value. Conversely, relative endorsement had a negligible impact on correction effectiveness. This suggests perceived relative endorsement may influence belief primarily when other cues of information veracity are unavailable.

Misinformation, Trust, and Use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. To quantify the prevalence of non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. This single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Self-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. A total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non-evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non-evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non-evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non-evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). In this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non-evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors.

Socio-economic disparities in exposure to and endorsement of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation and the associations with vaccine hesitancy and vaccination

ObjectivesWe examined disparities in vaccine misinformation exposure and endorsement and the associations with vaccine hesitancy and vaccination uptake. Study designPopulation-based survey. MethodsA population-based survey was conducted on 5,002 Hong Kong adults oversampling low socio-economic status (SES, n = 2,200). Information on exposure (13 misinformation statements, total 0–13, median = 2), endorsement (13 statements, score 0–10, high scores indicate higher levels of endorsement, median = 5.75) of misinformation, vaccine hesitancy (14 items, score 1–5), and vaccination (two doses) were collected. Multivariable regression (adjusted β [aβ]) and Poisson regression (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]) adjusting for demographic characteristics were used to examine the associations of exposure to and endorsement of misinformation with vaccine hesitancy and vaccination. ResultsA total of 71.8% of respondents had at least exposure to one vaccine misinformation, and 35.7% had a high level of endorsement (median or above). Respondents with lower SES had a lower exposure (≤2 statements, 57.1% vs 50.1%, P < 0.001) but a higher level of endorsement (36.6% vs 34.9%, P = 0.01) of misinformation. Overall, 72.9% had been vaccinated for two or more doses, with a lower proportion in respondents with lower SES (83.6% vs 61.1%; P < 0.001). Compared with no exposure to misinformation, high levels of exposure and endorsement were associated with vaccine hesitancy (aβ = 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.40–0.48; aβ = 0.50, 0.47–0.54, respectively) and lower vaccination rates (aRR = 0.98, 0.97–0.99; aRR = 0.92, 0.88–0.96, respectively). Vaccine hesitancy mediated the associations of exposure (fully, 100%) and endorsement (partially, 73%) with vaccination uptake. ConclusionEndorsement of vaccine misinformation in respondents with lower SES was associated with low vaccination uptake.

Can News Literacy Help Reduce Belief in COVID Misinformation?

ABSTRACT The rapid spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic has increased calls for news literacy to help mitigate endorsement of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and other falsehoods. In two cross-sectional online surveys conducted in October 2020 (N = 1,502) and July 2021 (N = 1,330), this study examines relationships between news literacy, COVID-19 misinformation, conspiratorial thinking, and political orientation in the United States. The results show that individuals with higher levels of news literacy were more likely to reject COVID-19 misinformation and conspiratorial thinking, but also that news literacy matters more for individuals with liberal political views than conservative political views and is unevenly distributed across the study population with age, race, political orientation, and news diet as significant predictors of news literacy. Results suggest that improved news literacy could be part of a strategy to equip individuals to reject health misinformation, but varied approaches will be necessary to engage with disparate groups.

Overconfident, resentful, and misinformed: How racial animus motivates confidence in false beliefs

AbstractObjectiveWe examine the role of racial resentment in motivating Americans to express confidence in misinformed beliefs on racialized scientific issues.MethodsWe study survey data from the 2020 American National Election Study. We examine respondents’ endorsement of misinformation on different scientific issues and their reported confidence in these views.ResultsWe find that racial resentment plays a strong role in leading Americans to hold confidently misinformed views about highly racialized policy issues (e.g., the occurrence of anthropogenic climate change or the origins of the COVID‐19 pandemic), but not on less racialized issues (e.g., childhood vaccine safety).ConclusionsOur work underscores the often‐overlooked importance of intergroup attitudes in shaping overconfidence and helps resolve theoretical tensions in the study of misinformation acceptance.

Exploring the Association between Misinformation Endorsement, Opinions on the Government Response, Risk Perception, and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in the US, Canada, and Italy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the adverse consequences created by an infodemic, specifically bringing attention to compliance with public health guidance and vaccine uptake. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a complex construct that is related to health beliefs, misinformation exposure, and perceptions of governmental institutions. This study draws on theoretical models and current data on the COVID-19 infodemic to explore the association between the perceived risk of COVID-19, level of misinformation endorsement, and opinions about the government response on vaccine uptake. We surveyed a sample of 2697 respondents from the US, Canada, and Italy using a mobile platform between 21–28 May 2021. Using multivariate regression, we found that country of residence, risk perception of contracting and spreading COVID-19, perception of government response and transparency, and misinformation endorsement were associated with the odds of vaccine hesitancy. Higher perceived risk was associated with lower odds of hesitancy, while lower perceptions of government response and higher misinformation endorsement were associated with higher hesitancy.

Rural Identity as a Contributing Factor to Anti-Intellectualism in the U.S.

Anti-intellectualism—a distrust of intellectuals and experts—has had a significant political presence in the U.S. and globally, especially in recent years. Anti-intellectualism drives support for phenomena such as populism, a rejection of scientific consensus, and health and science misinformation endorsement. Therefore, discovering what drives someone to be more anti-intellectual is highly important in understanding contemporary public opinion and political behavior. Here, I argue that a significant and overlooked factor contributing to anti-intellectualism is rural social identification—a psychological attachment to being from a rural area or small town—because rural identity in particular views experts and intellectuals as an out-group. Using 2019 ANES pilot data (N = 3000), original survey data (N = 811) and a separate original survey experiment, I find that rural social identification significantly predicts greater anti-intellectualism. Conversely, anti-intellectualism is not significantly associated with rural residency alone, as theoretically speaking, simply living in a rural area does not capture the affective dimension of rural psychological attachment. These findings have implications for health and science attitudes, populist support, and other relevant political matters. They also have implications for what it means to hold a rural identity beyond anti-urban sentiment, and for understanding the urban–rural divide.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09770-w.

SOCIAL MEDIA USE, TRUST AND TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE: INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A CO-CREATED BROWSER PLUGIN IN MITIGATING THE SPREAD OF MISINFORMATION ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media have become online spaces where misinformation abounds and spreads virally in the absence of professional gatekeeping. This information landscape requires everyday citizens, who rely on these technologies to access information, to cede control of information. This work sought to examine whether the control of information can be regained by humans with the support of a co-created browser plugin, which integrated credibility labels and nudges, and was informed by artificial intelligence models and rule engines. Given the literature on the complexity of information evaluation on social media, we investigated the role of technological, situational and individual characteristics in “liking” or “sharing” misinformation. We adopted a mixed-methods research design with 80 participants from four European sites, who viewed a curated timeline of credible and non-credible posts on Twitter, with (n=40) or without (n=40) the presence of the plugin. The role of the technological intervention was important: the absence of the plugin strongly correlated with misinformation endorsement (via “liking”). Trust in the technology and technology acceptance were correlated and emerged as important situational characteristics, with participants with higher trust profiles being less likely to share misinformation. Findings on individual characteristics indicated that only social media use was a significant predictor for trusting the plugin. This work extends ongoing research on deterring the spread of misinformation by situating the findings in an authentic social media environment using a co-created technological intervention. It holds implications for how to support a misinformation-resilient citizenry with the use of artificial intelligence-driven tools.

The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale

This paper presents two studies on the development and validation of a ten-item scale of epistemic vice and the relationship between epistemic vice and misinformation and fake news. Epistemic vices have been defined as character traits that interfere with acquiring, maintaining, and transmitting knowledge. Examples of epistemic vice are gullibility and indifference to knowledge. It has been hypothesized that epistemically vicious people are especially susceptible to misinformation and conspiracy theories. We conducted one exploratory and one confirmatory observational survey study on Amazon Mechanical Turk among people living in the United States (total N = 1737). We show that two psychological traits underlie the range of epistemic vices that we investigated: indifference to truth and rigidity. Indifference manifests itself in a lack of motivation to find the truth. Rigidity manifests itself in being insensitive to evidence. We develop a scale to measure epistemic vice with the subscales indifference and rigidity. The Epistemic Vice Scale is internally consistent; has good convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity; and is strongly associated with the endorsement of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Epistemic vice explains additional variance in the endorsement of misinformation and conspiracy theories over and above demographic and related psychological concepts and shows medium to large effect sizes across outcome measures. We demonstrate that epistemic vice differs from existing psychological constructs, and show that the scale can explain individual differences in dealing with misinformation and conspiracy theories. We conclude that epistemic vice might contribute to “postfactive” ways of thinking.

What Should I Trust? Individual Differences in Attitudes to Conflicting Information and Misinformation on COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a novel threat and traditional and new media provide people with an abundance of information and misinformation on the topic. In the current study, we investigated who tends to trust what type of mis/information. The data were collected in Norway from a sample of 405 participants during the first wave of COVID-19 in April 2020. We focused on three kinds of belief: the belief that the threat is overrated (COVID-threat skepticism), the belief that the threat is underrated (COVID-threat belief) and belief in misinformation about COVID-19. We studied sociodemographic factors associated with these beliefs and the interplay between attitudes to COVID-19, media consumption and prevention behavior. All three types of belief were associated with distrust in information about COVID-19 provided by traditional media and distrust in the authorities' approach to the pandemic. COVID-threat skepticism was associated with male gender, reduced news consumption since the start of the pandemic and lower levels of precautionary measures. Belief that the COVID-19 threat is underrated was associated with younger age, left-wing political orientation, increased news consumption during the pandemic and increased precautionary behavior. Consistent with the assumptions of the theory of planned behavior, individual beliefs about the seriousness of the COVID-19 threat predicted the extent to which individual participants adopted precautionary health measures. Both COVID-threat skepticism and COVID-threat belief were associated with endorsement of misinformation on COVID-19. Participants who endorsed misinformation tended to: have lower levels of education; be male; show decreased news consumption; have high Internet use and high trust in information provided by social media. Additionally, they tended to endorse multiple misinformation stories simultaneously, even when they were mutually contradictory. The strongest predictor for low compliance with precautionary measures was endorsement of a belief that the COVID-19 threat is overrated which at the time of the data collection was held also by some experts and featured in traditional media. The findings stress the importance of consistency of communication in situations of a public health threat.

The limited effects of partisan and consensus messaging in correcting science misperceptions

The spread of COVID-19 misinformation highlights the need to correct misperceptions about health and science. Research on climate change suggests that informing people about a scientific consensus can reduce misinformation endorsement, but these studies often fail to isolate the effects of consensus messaging and may not translate to other issues. We therefore conduct a survey experiment comparing standard corrections with those citing a scientific consensus for three issues: COVID-19 threat, climate change threat, and vaccine efficacy. We find that consensus corrections are never more effective than standard corrections at countering misperceptions and generally fail to reduce them with only one exception. We also find that consensus corrections endorsed by co-partisans do not reduce misperceptions relative to standard corrections, while those endorsed by opposition partisans are viewed as less credible and can potentially even provoke a backfire effect. These results indicate that corrections citing a scientific consensus, including corrective messages from partisans, are less effective than previous research suggests when compared with appropriate baseline messages.

Trust in information, political identity and the brain: an interdisciplinary fMRI study.

Misinformation has triggered government inquiries and threatens the perceived legitimacy of campaign processes and electoral outcomes. A new identity polarization has arisen between Remain and Leave sympathizers in the UK Brexit debate, with associated accusations of misinformation use. Competing psychological accounts of how people come to accept and defend misinformation pit self-reinforcing motivated cognition against lack of systematic reasoning as possible explanations. We harness insights from political science, cognitive neuroscience and psychology to examine the impact of trust and identity on information processing regarding Brexit in a group of Remain identifiers. Behaviourally, participants' affective responses to Brexit-related information are affected by whether the emotional valence of the message is compatible with their beliefs on Brexit (positive/negative) but not by their trust in the source of information. However, belief in the information is significantly affected by both (dis)trust in information source and by belief compatibility with the valence of the information. Neuroimaging results confirm this pattern, identifying areas involved in judgements of the self, others and automatic processing of affectively threatening stimuli, ultimately supporting motivated cognition accounts of misinformation endorsement.This article is part of the theme issue ‘The political brain: neurocognitive and computational mechanisms’.

The Development and Validation of the Epistemic Vice Scale

This paper presents two studies on the development and validation of a ten-item scale of epistemic vice and the relationship between epistemic vice and misinformation and fake news. Epistemic vices have been defined as character traits and other dispositions that interfere with acquiring, maintaining, and transmitting knowledge. Examples of epistemic vice are gullibility and indifference to knowledge. It has been hypothesized that epistemically vicious people are especially susceptible to misinformation and conspiracy theories. We conducted one exploratory and one confirmatory observational survey study on Amazon Mechanical Turk among people living in the United States (total N=1,737). We show that two psychological traits underlie epistemic vices: indifference to truth and rigidity. Indifference manifests itself in a lack of motivation to find the truth. Rigidity manifests itself in being insensitive to evidence. We develop a scale to measure epistemic vice with the subscales indifference and rigidity. The Epistemic Vice Scale is internally consistent; has good convergent, divergent, and discriminant validity; and is strongly associated with the endorsement of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Epistemic vice explains additional variance in the endorsement of misinformation and conspiracy theories over and above demographic and related psychological concepts and shows medium to large effect sizes across outcome measures. We demonstrate that epistemic vice differs from existing psychological constructs, and show that the scale can explain individual differences in dealing with misinformation and conspiracy theories. We conclude that epistemic vice might contribute to “postfactive” ways of thinking.

Correcting Misperceptions about the MMR Vaccine: Using Psychological Risk Factors to Inform Targeted Communication Strategies

Many Americans endorse misinformation about vaccine safety. This is problematic because those who do are more likely to resist evidence-based policies, such as mandatory vaccination for school attendance. Although many have attempted to correct misinformation about vaccines, few attempts have been successful. This study uses psychological correlates of vaccine misinformation acceptance to develop a novel misinformation correction strategy by tailoring provaccine messages to appeal to these psychological traits. For example, people with higher moral purity levels are more likely to view vaccines as contaminating the body, but messages highlighting disease via under-vaccination can use their higher moral purity to push them toward vaccine support. Using a large survey experiment ( N = 7,019) and a smaller replication experiment ( N = 825) of American adults, we demonstrate that interventions designed to appeal to people high in moral purity and needle sensitivity—two relatively understudied correlates of vaccine misinformation support—can also be targeted to effectively reduce vaccine misinformation endorsement. This study provides a better understanding of the psychological origins of misinformed political and policy attitudes, and it suggests a strategy for combating policy-related misinformation more generally, ultimately boosting support for evidence-based policies.

Lateral Eye Movements Do Not Increase False-Memory Rates: A Failed Direct-Replication Study

In this direct replication of Houben, Otgaar, Roelofs, and Merckelbach ( Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 610–616, 2018), we tested whether making eye movements during memory recall increases susceptibility to creating false memories. Undergraduates ( N = 206) watched a video of a car crash, after which they recalled the video with or without simultaneously making eye movements. Next, participants received misinformation about the video. Finally, during the critical test, they were questioned about video details. The results showed that making eye movements did not increase endorsement of misinformation (i.e., false memory), nor did it reduce (correct) memory details or memory vividness and emotionality. Random variation in sampling or measurement, low reliability of the test instrument, and observer-expectancy effects may explain discrepancies between study effects. Only multiple direct replications by different (independent) laboratories with standardized instruments will allow for assessing whether the effect is robust and largely independent of random variation and moderators.