Continued influence effect
The continued influence effect is a cognitive bias where people continue to maintain beliefs based on misinformation, even after it has been debunked. Despite corrections and factual information being presented, the initial misinformation persists in influencing beliefs and decisions.
How it works
When individuals are exposed to information, even if it is later proven false, the original information can stick and linger in their cognitive space. This occurs because of mental anchoring—the initial piece of information becomes a part of one's network of beliefs and expectations. As a result, corrections may not fully overwrite the misinformation because cognitive inertia favors the original data. The bias is amplified by emotional investment, repeated exposure, supportive anecdotal evidence, and social reinforcement.
Examples
- In media, a false news report can cause public panic or outrage. Even after the retraction of the report, some individuals continue to harbor feelings of concern or mistrust based on the initial misinformation.
- In medical settings, if a patient reads misleading information about a treatment online, even after subsequent consultation with a doctor, they may still harbor doubts or fears based on the incorrect data they first encountered.
Consequences
The continued influence effect can lead to enduring misconceptions and poor decision-making. It may skew public opinion, enforce stereotypes, or lead to mistrust in institutions and experts. It is a significant issue in areas where misinformation can have profound implications, such as public health, politics, and science communication.
Counteracting
To mitigate this bias, it is essential to present corrections in a clear and concise manner promptly after misinformation is introduced. Efforts should include creating an emotional impact or narrative around the correction, providing alternative causal explanations that replace the original misinformation, and repeatedly affirming the correction across multiple platforms. Critical thinking skills and media literacy can also empower individuals to evaluate information more effectively.
Critiques
A critique of studying the continued influence effect is the complexity involved in isolating variables in real-world scenarios where multiple sources of misinformation and correction exist. Additionally, not all individuals are equally susceptible to this bias, and demographic factors like age and education may mediate its effects.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012)
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences
Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994)
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Recommended Books
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Continued influence effect manifests in practice
Context
A regional community hospital ran a routine childhood vaccination clinic in a town of 45,000. Anxiety about vaccine safety was already present among a small but vocal segment of the population.
Situation
After a single infant developed a fever following routine immunization, a parent posted on social media claiming the hospital had administered a 'contaminated batch' of vaccines. The post went viral in local groups. Hospital leadership quickly investigated, notified public health authorities, and publicly confirmed that no contamination occurred and that the infant's fever was consistent with a common temporary immune response.
The Bias in Action
Despite the hospital's formal investigation and repeated official denials, many community members continued to reference the original social media post as factual. Corrections from the hospital and the county health department were treated as defensive or incomplete by those who had already accepted the initial claim. Conversations in parenting groups and local chats kept circulating the rumor, and the original claim was reposted with emotional commentary that kept it salient. Even parents who privately believed the vaccine was safe delayed or declined follow-up immunizations, citing lingering doubt from the original allegation.
Outcome
Over six months the local vaccination rate for the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) series fell from 92% to 74% among children turning two, reversing a multi-year trend of improvement. Nine months after the rumor began, the county experienced its first measles cluster in five years (23 confirmed cases, spanning three schools). The hospital's pediatric clinic lost approximately 12% of well-child visit volume and reported a 9% decline in revenue from routine pediatric services during that period.