Healthy Aging diminishes the quantity (rate) and quality (precision) of episodic recollection.

Healthy aging leads to a significant decline in episodic memory, producing a reduction in thelikelihood of successful recollection, such that older adults remember less than younger adults.Emerging evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging studies demonstrate that recollectedinformation can also be more or less precise, highlighting a source of variability in memoryperformance not typically considered in studies of aging. Consequently, it is unknown whetherolder adults, compared to younger adults, only show a significant reduction in recollection rate or also exhibit a decline in recollection precision. Here, we provide new insight into age-relatedmemory decline by employing a novel source task that allows us to examine both the quantity(rate) and quality (precision) of episodic memory retrieval. First, we validated our task,demonstrating that it can effectively capture variability in both the rate and precision in olderadults. Second, we directly compared younger and older adults’ performance as a function ofstudy-test delay, showing significant reductions in both the rate and precision of recollectionwith age. Finally, we asked whether age-related changes in recollection can be accounted for bya reduction in attention, revealing that the division of attention in young adults results in areduction in rate but shows little evidence for a change in precision. Our results raise questionsabout the nature of age-related memory decline, highlighting the importance of measuring boththe quality and quantity of memory, and suggest new routes to achieve the early detection anddiagnosis of abnormal aging deficits.

You don’t have to tell a story! A registered report testing the effectiveness of narrative versus non-narrative misinformation corrections

Misinformation often has an ongoing effect on people’s memory and inferential reasoning even after clear corrections are provided; this is known as the continued influence effect. In pursuit of more effective corrections, one factor that has not yet been investigated systematically is the narrative versus non-narrative format of the correction. Some scholars have suggested that a narrative format facilitates comprehension and retention of complex information and may serve to overcome resistance to worldview-dissonant corrections. It is, therefore, a possibility that misinformation corrections are more effective if they are presented in a narrative format versus a non-narrative format. The present study tests this possibility. We designed corrections that are either narrative or non-narrative, while minimizing differences in informativeness. We compared narrative and non-narrative corrections in three preregistered experiments (total N = 2279). Experiment 1 targeted misinformation contained in fictional event reports; Experiment 2 used false claims commonly encountered in the real world; Experiment 3 used real-world false claims that are controversial, in order to test the notion that a narrative format may facilitate corrective updating primarily when it serves to reduce resistance to correction. In all experiments, we also manipulated test delay (immediate vs. 2 days), as any potential benefit of the narrative format may only arise in the short term (if the story format aids primarily with initial comprehension and updating of the relevant mental model) or after a delay (if the story format aids primarily with later correction retrieval). In all three experiments, it was found that narrative corrections are no more effective than non-narrative corrections. Therefore, while stories and anecdotes can be powerful, there is no fundamental benefit of using a narrative format when debunking misinformation.

Can Corrections Spread Misinformation to New Audiences? Testing for the Elusive Familiarity Backfire Effect

Misinformation often continues to influence inferential reasoning after clear and credible corrections are provided; this effect is known as the continued influence effect. It has been theorized that this effect is partly driven by misinformation familiarity. Some researchers have even argued that a correction should avoid repeating the misinformation, as the correction itself could serve to inadvertently enhance misinformation familiarity and may thus backfire, ironically strengthening the very misconception it aims to correct. While previous research has found little evidence of such familiarity backfire effects, there remains one situation where they may yet arise: when correcting entirely novel misinformation, where corrections could serve to spread misinformation to new audiences who had never heard of it before. This article presents three experiments (total N = 1,718) investigating the possibility of familiarity backfire within the context of correcting novel misinformation claims and after a one-week study-test delay. While there was variation across experiments, overall there was substantial evidence against familiarity backfire. Corrections that exposed participants to novel misinformation did not lead to stronger misconceptions compared to a control group never exposed to the false claims or corrections. This suggests that it is safe to repeat misinformation when correcting it, even when the audience might be unfamiliar with the misinformation.

Spacing Effects in Learning

To achieve enduring retention, people must usually study information on multiple occasions. How does the timing of study events affect retention? Prior research has examined this issue only in a spotty fashion, usually with very short time intervals. In a study aimed at characterizing spacing effects over significant durations, more than 1,350 individuals were taught a set of facts and—after a gap of up to 3.5 months—given a review. A final test was administered at a further delay of up to 1 year. At any given test delay, an increase in the interstudy gap at first increased, and then gradually reduced, final test performance. The optimal gap increased as test delay increased. However, when measured as a proportion of test delay, the optimal gap declined from about 20 to 40% of a 1-week test delay to about 5 to 10% of a 1-year test delay. The interaction of gap and test delay implies that many educational practices are highly inefficient.