Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:41:46.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Avoiding and Overcoming Misinformation on the Internet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

By
Jason L. G. Braasch  and
Arthur C. Graesser
Edited by
Robert J. Sternberg  and
Diane F. Halpern
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Diane F. Halpern
Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California
Get access

Summary

Because anyone can publish their thoughts on the Internet without professional gatekeeping, readers routinely encounter misinformation. Unfortunately, people appear to forego critical thinking when reading online. On the one hand, readers appear to prioritize inaccurate information that allows them to preserve their pre-existing misconceptions. On the other hand, readers with accurate pre-existing understandings are also prone to acquiring new misinformation they encounter on the Internet. Critical thinking can help people overcome pre-existing misconceptions through a comparison process with accurate conceptions, as can critically evaluating website credibility based on available source features. Critical thinking can also help people avoid or quickly discard novel misinformation they encounter through an evaluation of the trustworthiness of the information sources. Digital technologies can play a major role in training students how to avoid, detect, and handle misinformation on the web, although they may require long periods of instruction to maximize learning.

Keywords

cognitive disequalibriumcomputer agentecho chamberfilter bubblemetacognitionrefutation textsourcimg strategies
Type
Chapter
Information
Critical Thinking in Psychology , pp. 125 - 151
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, P. A., & The Disciplined Reading and Learning Research Laboratory. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 259–280. DOI:10.1080/00461520.2012.722511Google Scholar
Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In Schober, M. F., Britt, M. A., & Rapp, D. N. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd. ed.), (pp. 141–161). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522. DOI:10.1207/s1532690xci2004_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Durik, A. M. (2018). Literacy beyond text comprehension: A theory of purposeful reading. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Fenton, O., & Martin, K. (2014). Do people keep believing because they want to? Preexisting attitudes and the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42, 292–304.Google Scholar
Eysenbach, G., & Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324, 573–577.Google Scholar
Fazio, L. K., Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., Ornstein, P. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Creating illusions of knowledge: Learning errors that contradict prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forsyth, C. M., Pavlik, P., Graesser, A. C., Cai, Z., Germany, M., Millis, K., Butler, H., & Dolan, R. (2012). Learning gains for core concepts in a serious game on scientific reasoning. In Yacef, K., Zaïane, O., Hershkovitz, H., Yudelson, M., & Stamper, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (pp. 172–175). Chania, Greece: International Educational Data Mining Society.Google Scholar
Furnham, A., & Hughes, D. (2014). Myths and misconceptions in popular psychology: Comparing psychology students and the general public. Teaching of Psychology, 41, 256–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerjets, P., & Hellenthal-Schorr, T. (2008). Competent information search in the World Wide Web: Development and evaluation of a web training for pupils. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 693–715.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107–119.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R. (2018). Discourse of learning and the learning of discourse. Discourse Processes, 55, 434–453.Google Scholar
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., O’Reilly, T., Jeon, M., & McDaniel, B. (2007). SEEK Web tutor: Fostering a critical stance while exploring the causes of volcanic eruption. Metacognition and Learning, 2, 89–105.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F. (2007). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. F., Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., Butler, H., Forsyth, C., & Cai, Z. (2012). Operation ARA: A computerized learning game that teaches critical thinking and scientific reasoning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, D. K., Hagerman, M. S., & Leu, D. J. (2018). Towards a new literacies perspective of synthesis: Multiple source meaning construction. In Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.), Handbook of multiple source use (pp. 55–78). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1998). Updating accounts following a correction of misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1483–1494.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420–1436.Google Scholar
Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1193–1203.Google Scholar
Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In Rapp, D. N. & Braasch, J. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2005). The role of readers’ misconceptions on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 235–245.Google Scholar
Kortum, P., Edwards, C., & Richards-Kortum, R. (2008). The impact of inaccurate Internet health information in a secondary school learning environment. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 10, e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, P., & Taylor, A. K. (2004). Ability and critical thinking as predictors of change in students’ psychological misconceptions. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 297–303.Google Scholar
Lassonde, K. A., Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Refutation texts: Overcoming psychology misconceptions that are resistant to change. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2, 62–74.Google Scholar
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 37, 2098–2109.Google Scholar
Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151–175.Google Scholar
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, III, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 519–536.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., & Barnes, A. (2016). Differences in student reasoning about belief-relevant arguments: A mixed methods study. Metacognition & Learning, 11 (3), 275–303.Google Scholar
McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Butler, H., Wallace, P., Graesser, A., Halpern, D. (2011). Operation ARIES!: A serious game for teaching scientific inquiry. In Ma, M., Oikonomou, A. & Jain, L. (Eds.), Serious Games and Edutainment Applications (pp. 169–195). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Wallace, P., Graesser, A. C., & Timmins, G. (2017). The impact of game-like features on learning from an intelligent tutoring system. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millis, K., Graesser, A. C., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). Operation ARA: A serious game that combines intelligent tutoring and learning principles to teach science. In Benassi, V. A., Overson, C. E., & Hakala, C. M. (Eds.), Applying science of learning in education: Infusing psychological science into the curriculum (pp. 169–183). Washington, D.C.: Society for the Teaching of Psychology Series.Google Scholar
Mullet, H. G., Umanath, S., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Recent study, but not retrieval, of knowledge protects against learning errors. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1239–1249.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2013). PISA 2015 Draft Science Framework. Online. https://tinyurl.com/yxw58lsjGoogle Scholar
Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Lorigo, L., Gay, G., & Granka, L. (2007). In Google we trust: Users’ decisions on rank, position, and relevance. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 801–823.Google Scholar
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2009). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science and the Public Interest, 9, 105–119.Google Scholar
Pirolli, P. (2003). A theory of information scent. In Jacko, J. & Stephanides, C. (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 (pp. 213–217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N. (2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 281–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, D. N., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2014). Accurate and inaccurate knowledge acquisition. In Rapp, D. N. & Braasch, J. L. G. (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., & Salovich, N. A. (2018). Can’t we just disregard fake news? The consequences of exposure to inaccurate information. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 232–239.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Kohlhepp, K., & Ryskin, R. A. (2014). Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Memory & Cognition, 42, 11–26.Google Scholar
Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., & Durik, A. (2017). RESOLV: Readers’ representation of reading. contexts and tasks. Educational Psychologist, 52, 200–215.Google Scholar
Salmerón, L., Kammerer, Y., & García-Carrión, P. (2013). Searching the Web for conflicting topics: Page and user factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2161–2171.Google Scholar
Seifert, C. M. (2014). The continued influence effect: The persistence of misinformation in memory and reasoning following a correction. In Rapp, D. N. & Braasch, J. L. G. (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive computer-tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716–737.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Zhang, L.-F. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486–506.Google Scholar
Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation texts in science education: A review of two decades of research. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.Google Scholar
Van Boekel, M., Lassonde, K. A., O’Brien, E. J., & Kendeou, P. (2017). Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Memory and Cognition, 45, 168–181.Google Scholar
Van Strien, J. L. H., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252.Google Scholar
Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 821–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, J., Ash, I. K., Sanchez, C. A., & Jaeger, A. (2011). Clarifying readers’ goals for learning from expository science texts. In McCrudden, M., Magliano, J., & Schraw, G. (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 353–374). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Wilkes, A. L., & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(2), 361–387. DOI:10.1080/02724988843000168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×