Abstract
This study focuses on the vulnerability of general knowledge held in semantic memory. Previous studies have shown that exposure to inaccurate information can negatively affect prior knowledge. This study explores the effect of exposure to inaccurate information on semantic memory, presented in nonfiction articles. The procedure consisted of a pretest (general knowledge quiz), a manipulation stage one week later with articles containing inaccurate information for the experimental group and neutral information for the control group, and a posttest (another general knowledge quiz) given immediately after the manipulation stage. The participants were 55 Universitas Indonesia undergraduate students, divided into control and experimental groups by randomized matching based on the pretest results. An independent sample t-test showed a significant difference between the experimental group (M = −1.538, SD = 1.794) and the control group (M = 0.517, SD = 1.639), (t(53) = −4.441, p < 0.01, two-tailed), with the experimental group showing a decline in general knowledge quiz scores. These findings demonstrate that exposure to inaccurate information affects semantic memory by interfering with the retrieval process of that memory.
Bahasa Abstract
Studi ini membahas mengenai kerentanan pengetahuan umum yang tersimpan dalam memori semantik. Studi sebelumnya menunjukkan bahwa paparan informasi yang tidak akurat dapat mempengaruhi pengetahuan yang dimiliki sebelumnya secara negatif. Studi ini mengeksplorasi pengaruh paparan informasi yang tidak akurat terhadap memori semantik, yang disajikan dalam bentuk artikel nonfiksi. Penelitian terdiri dari pretest (kuis pengetahuan umum), satu minggu kemudian diberikan manipulasi menggunakan artikel yang berisi informasi yang tidak akurat untuk kelompok eksperimen dan informasi netral untuk kelompok kontrol, dan posttest (kuis pengetahuan umum lainnya) yang diberikan segera setelah tahap manipulasi. Partisipan terdiri dari 55 mahasiswa S1 Universitas Indonesia, yang dibagi secara acak ke dalam kelompok kontrol dan kelompok eksperimen berdasarkan hasil pretest. Analisis independent sample t-test menunjukkan ada perbedaan skor yang signifikan antara kelompok eksperimen (M = −1.538, SD = 1.794) dan kelompok kontrol (M = 0.517, SD = 1.639), (t(53) = −4.441, p < 0.01, dua arah), kelompok eksperimen menunjukkan penurunan skor kuis pengetahuan umum. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa paparan informasi yang tidak akurat mempengaruhi memori semantik dengan mengganggu proses retrieval.
References
Antoniadis, S., Litou, I., & Kalogeraki, V. (2015). A model for identifying misinformation in online social networks. OTM Confederated International Conferences “On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems” (pp. 473- 482). Springer International Publishing. Ashcraft, M., & Radvansky, G. (2010). Cognition (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Elliot, D., & Culver, C. (1992). Defining and analyzing journalistic deception. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 7(2), 69–84. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme0702_1 Eslick, A. N., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). Ironic effects of drawing attention to story errors. Memory, 19(2), 184-191. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2010.543908 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), 1-5. doi: 10.1037/a0028649 Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2008). Older, not younger, children learn a false facts from stories. Cognition, 106(1), 1081-1089. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.012 Gravetter, F. & Forzano, L. (2012). Research methods for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2013). Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Haryandi, M. (March 30, 2017). Informasi B.J Habibie wafat ternyata hoax!. Tribunnews.com. Retrieved from http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2017/03/30/inform asi-bj-habibie-wafat-ternyata-hoax King, L. A. (2012). The science of psychology: An appreciative view (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hills Education. Lee, S. (2004). Lying, to tell the truth: Journalists and the social context of deception. Mass Communication and Society, 7(1), 97-120. doi: 10.1207/s15327825mcs0701_7 Lewis-Breck, M. S., Bryman, A. & Futing Liao, T. (2004). The SAGE encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd. Loftus, E. (2004). Memories of things unseen. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 145-147. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00294.x Marsh, E. J., Balota, D. A., & Roediger III, H. L. (2005). Learning facts from fiction: Effects of healthy aging and early-stage dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neuropsychology, 19(1), 115-129. doi: 10.1037/0894- 4105.19.1.115 Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(4), 519-536. doi: 10.1016/s0749- 596x(03)00092-5 Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34(5), 1140- 1149. doi: 10.3758/bf03193260 Mullet, H. G., Umanath, S., & Marsh, E. J. (2014). Recent study, but not retrieval, of knowledge, protects against learning errors. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1239-1249. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0437-7 Mitchell, D. B. (1989). How many memory systems? Evidence from aging. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(1), 31-49. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.15.1.31 Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(3), 338-368. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90266-2 Nyberg, L., Bäckman, L., Erngrund, K., Olofsson, U., & Nilsson, L. G. (1996). Age differences in episodic memory, semantic memory, and priming: Relationships to demographic, intellectual, and biological factors. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 51B(4), P234-P240. doi: 10.1093/geronb/51b.4.p234 Rapp, D. N. (2016). The consequences of reading inaccurate information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 281-285. doi: 10.1177/0963721416649347 Rapp, D. N., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2014). Processing inaccurate information: theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Situngkir, H. (2011). Spread of hoax in social media. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=18 31202 Tulving, E. (1986). Episodic and semantic memory: Where should we go from here?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(3), 573. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00047257 Tversky, B., & Marsh, E. (2000). Biased retellings of events yield biased memories. Cognitive Psychology, 40(1), 1-38. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1999.0720 Vuković, M., Pripužić, K., & Belani, H. (2009). An intelligent automatic hoax detection system. Knowledge-Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, 318-325. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642- 04595-0_39 West, R. L., Crook, T. H., & Barron, K. L. (1992). Everyday memory performance across the life span: Effects of age and noncognitive individual differences. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 72-82. doi: 10.1037/0882- 7974.7.1.72
Recommended Citation
Arbiyah, N., Adiningtyas, D., Widodo, M., & Safitri, A. (2020). The Danger of Hoax: The Effect of Inaccurate Information on Semantic Memory. Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia, 24(1), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.7454/hubs.asia.1020719