Self-reported fake news exposure is mostly false memory rather than real contact

Evidence

As part of the survey, the researchers asked people whether they remembered hearing about or seeing a set of fifteen articles in the months leading up to the US election and whether they believed that the articles were true or fake (some of the fake articles were placebos made up by the researchers themselves). What they found was peculiar: people reported having seen the placebo and fake articles at about an equal rate (14 versus 15 per cent). Assuming that the rate at which people remember the placebos is a good estimate of false recall, the differential (+ 1 per cent) must be the true exposure rate. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 518

Categorization

• QUESTION: The placebo-control design for memory is clever but the differential method rests on the assumption that false recall of real fake headlines equals that of made-up placebos. Real headlines might be more memorable precisely because they echo real events.
• XREF: connects to: Self-reported fake news exposure greatly exceeds model-based estimates — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 525; Retroactive exposure to misleading content fabricates detailed memories of impossible events — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 81; Misinformation leaves residual traces in memory even after correction — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 241

Broader Connections

• Self-reported fake news exposure greatly exceeds model-based estimates #contradicts (0.90) — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof, 525