Proneness to false memory generation predicts pseudoscientific belief endorsement

Author:

Martínez Naroa,Barberia Itxaso,Rodríguez-Ferreiro JavierORCID

Abstract

AbstractAmong cognitive factors that can influence the endorsement of pseudoscientific beliefs, our study focuses on proneness to false memory generation. In this preregistered study, we presented 170 fluent English speakers residing in the USA with a misinformation task aimed at generating false memories. In this task, they first completed an event encoding stage, in which two events were narrated through sequentially presented pictures. One day later, they read a series of sentences relating the same events but which included several inaccurate descriptions aimed at producing a misinformation effect. Finally, we measured the influence of the misinformation manipulation over false memory generation. After completing the misinformation task, participants responded to a questionnaire measuring pseudoscientific beliefs. Our results showed a positive correlation between pseudoscience endorsement and false memory rates, which indicates that the latter might be a key factor influencing susceptibility to pseudoscience. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a link between the tendency to believe in pseudoscience and variability regarding proneness to develop false memories. Practical implications for the design of new interventions to effectively reduce pseudoscientific beliefs and their negative impact on our society are discussed.

Funder

Agencia Estatal de Investigación

Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference68 articles.

1. American Society of Clinical Oncology. (2019). Percentage of U.S. adults that had select opinions on alternative medicine for cancer patients as of 2019, by political affiliation* [Graph]. In Statista. Retrieved September 14, 2023, from https://www-statista-com.sire.ub.edu/statistics/944404/alternative-medicine-opinions-for-cancer-treatment-by-political-affiliation/

2. American Psychological Association. (2018). Magical Thinking. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. Retrieved November 25, 2019 from https://dictionary.apa.org/magical-thinking

3. Astin, J. A. (1998). Why patients use alternative medicine. JAMA, 279(19), 1548. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.19.1548

4. Barberia, I., Vadillo, M. A., & Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J. (2019). Persistence of causal illusions after extensive training. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 24. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00024

5. Barnes, P. M., Bloom, B., & Nahin, R. L. (2008). Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. National Health Statistics Reports, 12, 1–23.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3