Explicitly retracted misinformation still leaks into memory representations and answers

Evidence

What’s interesting therefore is that, despite this explicit awareness of the correction, the misinformation virus had already infected other memory representations of the event. For example, when asked what might have caused the toxic fumes, some participants mentioned ‘burning paint.’ Similarly, when queried about why the fire might have been so intense and difficult to put out, answers included ‘oil fires are hard to put out’. For what reason might an insurance claim be refused? ‘Because flammable items were not kept in a safe place.’ In other words, although participants were clearly aware that the cause of the fire was not the chemical materials, misinformation had already started to take root in their memory; participants were relying on the misinformation when asked about the event. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 251

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Misinformation hijacks cognitive machinery and resists correction like a virus — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 22; Misinformation leaves residual traces in memory even after correction — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 241; Awareness of a correction does not stop misinformation from infecting related memories (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Awareness of a correction does not stop misinformation from infecting related memories #corroborates (0.95)
• Sustained misinformation immunity requires periodic booster reminders #expands (0.85) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 814
• Effective debunking frames corrections around the truth, not the repeated myth #responds-to (0.80) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 286