Citation

Green MC, Donahue JK. Media Psychol. 2011; 14(3): 312-331.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2011, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15213269.2011.598050

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Readers typically respond with anger and derogation when they discover that an author has engaged in intentional deception (representing a false story as true). Does this negative response to the author also cause individuals to correct beliefs that may have been changed by the discredited story? In this experiment (N = 160), the alleged truth status of a narrative was manipulated. In one condition, the narrative was presented as fictional (a socially accepted form of untruth). The remaining three conditions initially presented the story as factual. Participants in two of these conditions were informed after reading the story that it was inaccurate due to a) accidental error or b) intentional deception. The story changed attitudes from a no-story control in all conditions. Although readers derogated a deceptive author, they did not correct their attitudes even in the intentional and accidental error conditions. A measure of the parts of the story that the participants rejected (false note circling), suggests that participants were motivated to correct for inaccuracies, but were not able to do so effectively.
Readers typically respond with anger and derogation when they discover that an author has engaged in intentional deception (representing a false story as true). Does this negative response to the author also cause individuals to correct beliefs that may have been changed by the discredited story? In this experiment (N = 160), the alleged truth status of a narrative was manipulated. In one condition, the narrative was presented as fictional (a socially accepted form of untruth). The remaining three conditions initially presented the story as factual. Participants in two of these conditions were informed after reading the story that it was inaccurate due to a) accidental error or b) intentional deception. The story changed attitudes from a no-story control in all conditions. Although readers derogated a deceptive author, they did not correct their attitudes even in the intentional and accidental error conditions. A measure of the parts of the story that the participants rejected (false note circling), suggests that participants were motivated to correct for inaccuracies, but were not able to do so effectively.