Not wallowing in misery–retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

People often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning after they have acknowledged a retraction; this phenomenon is known as the continued-influence effect. Retractions can be particularly ineffective when the retracted misinformation is consistent with a pre-existing worldview. We investigated this effect in the context of depressive rumination. Given the prevalence of depressotypic worldviews in depressive rumination, we hypothesised that depressive rumination may affect the processing of retractions of valenced misinformation; specifically, we predicted that the retraction of negative misinformation might be less effective in depressive ruminators. In two experiments, we found evidence against this hypothesis: in depressive ruminators, retractions of negative misinformation were at least as effective as they were in control participants, and more effective than retractions of positive misinformation. Findings are interpreted in terms of an attentional bias that may enhance the salience of negative misinformation and may thus facilitate its updating in depressive rumination.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)991-1005
JournalCognition and Emotion
Volume33
Issue number5
Early online date14 Oct 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Communication
Rumination
World View

Cite this

@article{575bd2b296f1448fa53bb8969c24bd14,
title = "Not wallowing in misery–retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination",
abstract = "People often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning after they have acknowledged a retraction; this phenomenon is known as the continued-influence effect. Retractions can be particularly ineffective when the retracted misinformation is consistent with a pre-existing worldview. We investigated this effect in the context of depressive rumination. Given the prevalence of depressotypic worldviews in depressive rumination, we hypothesised that depressive rumination may affect the processing of retractions of valenced misinformation; specifically, we predicted that the retraction of negative misinformation might be less effective in depressive ruminators. In two experiments, we found evidence against this hypothesis: in depressive ruminators, retractions of negative misinformation were at least as effective as they were in control participants, and more effective than retractions of positive misinformation. Findings are interpreted in terms of an attentional bias that may enhance the salience of negative misinformation and may thus facilitate its updating in depressive rumination.",
keywords = "attentional bias, continued-influence effect, depression, Misinformation, rumination",
author = "Chang, {Ee Pin} and Ecker, {Ullrich K. H} and Page, {Andrew C.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1080/02699931.2018.1533808",
language = "English",
volume = "33",
pages = "991--1005",
journal = "Cognition & Emotion",
issn = "0269-9931",
publisher = "Psychology Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Not wallowing in misery–retractions of negative misinformation are effective in depressive rumination

AU - Chang, Ee Pin

AU - Ecker, Ullrich K. H

AU - Page, Andrew C.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - People often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning after they have acknowledged a retraction; this phenomenon is known as the continued-influence effect. Retractions can be particularly ineffective when the retracted misinformation is consistent with a pre-existing worldview. We investigated this effect in the context of depressive rumination. Given the prevalence of depressotypic worldviews in depressive rumination, we hypothesised that depressive rumination may affect the processing of retractions of valenced misinformation; specifically, we predicted that the retraction of negative misinformation might be less effective in depressive ruminators. In two experiments, we found evidence against this hypothesis: in depressive ruminators, retractions of negative misinformation were at least as effective as they were in control participants, and more effective than retractions of positive misinformation. Findings are interpreted in terms of an attentional bias that may enhance the salience of negative misinformation and may thus facilitate its updating in depressive rumination.

AB - People often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning after they have acknowledged a retraction; this phenomenon is known as the continued-influence effect. Retractions can be particularly ineffective when the retracted misinformation is consistent with a pre-existing worldview. We investigated this effect in the context of depressive rumination. Given the prevalence of depressotypic worldviews in depressive rumination, we hypothesised that depressive rumination may affect the processing of retractions of valenced misinformation; specifically, we predicted that the retraction of negative misinformation might be less effective in depressive ruminators. In two experiments, we found evidence against this hypothesis: in depressive ruminators, retractions of negative misinformation were at least as effective as they were in control participants, and more effective than retractions of positive misinformation. Findings are interpreted in terms of an attentional bias that may enhance the salience of negative misinformation and may thus facilitate its updating in depressive rumination.

KW - attentional bias

KW - continued-influence effect

KW - depression

KW - Misinformation

KW - rumination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055109354&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/02699931.2018.1533808

DO - 10.1080/02699931.2018.1533808

M3 - Article

VL - 33

SP - 991

EP - 1005

JO - Cognition & Emotion

JF - Cognition & Emotion

SN - 0269-9931

IS - 5

ER -