Fig 1.
Schematic of experimental procedure at Time 1 and Time 2.
Note: A series of measures assessing individual differences in cognitive ability and knowledge about COVID-19 were also collected at Time 1, with their presentation counterbalanced with the measures described here. These measures are not relevant to the present paper, and so are omitted from this schematic in the interests of clarity.
Fig 2.
Percentage of participants who reported a false memory for each fake story in the original study (T1) and at follow-up (T2).
T2 false memory rates are displayed separately for stories to which the participant had previously been exposed (repeated stories, seen at T1 and T2) and stories to which the participant had not previously been exposed (novel stories, seen at T2 only).
Table 1.
Percentage of participants who reported a false memory at follow-up for novel and repeated stories.
Table 2.
False memories and truthfulness ratings at Time 2 for stories that were initially remembered or not remembered at Time 1.
Fig 3.
Mean truthfulness rating for each fake story in the original study (T1) and at follow-up (T2), presented separately for novel and repeated stories.
Error bars represent standard errors of the mean.
Table 3.
Number and percentage of participants who report remembering and/or believing each fake story following the second debriefing at the end of the follow-up survey (Time 2).
Fig 4.
Mean d’ values as a function of time and warning condition, indicating participants’ ability to discriminate between memories for true and fake stories.
Error bars represent standard error of the mean.
Fig 5.
Mean behavioural intention scores for the targeted behaviours at Time 2, separately for participants who were or were not exposed to the associated misinformation at Time 1.
Time 1 data for exposed participants is provided for comparison. 1 = strongly disagree [that I intend to engage in the targeted behaviour], 7 = strongly agree. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.