PsychologicalDUAL-USE

Continued Influence Effect

What it is

A specific piece of information keeps shaping people's reasoning after it has been clearly retracted — even when they remember the retraction and say they accept it.

How it works

In the paradigm Wilkes and Leatherbarrow introduced and Johnson and Seifert (1994) refined, participants read a report of a warehouse fire that mentions oil paint and gas cylinders in a closet, then a correction stating the closet was empty. Asked later what caused the fire, they still cite the paint, while also correctly reporting the correction. The retraction is remembered; it just does not do its job. The best-supported explanation is that the misinformation fills a causal slot in the mental model of the event, and a bare retraction leaves that slot empty — a correction that supplies an alternative cause (arson materials were found) works far better. Lewandowsky and colleagues' 2012 review and the Debunking Handbook 2020 turned this into practice: lead with the fact, warn briefly that a myth follows, explain why the myth is wrong, and restate the fact. Persuaders exploit the effect by treating a later correction as free: the claim goes out loud on Monday, the correction goes out quietly on Thursday, and the causal story the claim installed keeps working. The much-discussed worry that corrections backfire has largely failed to replicate; the real problem is that corrections are partial, not counterproductive.

Real-world examples

  • •Johnson and Seifert (1994): participants who read that the storage closet had actually been empty still used the paint and gas cylinders to explain the fire, and did so even when they recalled the correction accurately.
  • •Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer and Morales (2005) found that people who had absorbed claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction continued to reason with them after the claims were retracted, most strongly among those who did not suspect the original claims.
  • •Specific allegations from the 2016 Steele dossier, such as the claim that Michael Cohen met Russian officials in Prague, were not substantiated by the Mueller investigation yet continued to circulate as background fact among the other side of the aisle.
  • •Andrew Wakefield's 1998 paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism was retracted by The Lancet in 2010 after the findings were discredited; the causal story it installed remains a primary driver of vaccine hesitancy.
  • •A newspaper headline that a food additive causes cancer runs on page one; the correction that the study was in rats at doses no human consumes runs a week later on page twelve, and consumers keep avoiding the additive.

Ethical guidelines

Where the line is

Everyone makes claims that later need correcting; the line is crossed when a claim is released knowing it is weak and that its correction will be quieter and later, so that the persuader is counting on the correction not working.

  • ●Correct at the same volume and in the same channel as the original claim; a quiet correction of a loud claim is not a correction.
  • ●When retracting, supply the alternative explanation; do not leave a causal gap for the myth to refill.
  • ●Do not publish a claim on the assumption that a later correction will cover you; the effect of the claim is what you are responsible for.
  • ●Follow the fact-myth-fallacy-fact structure when debunking, and avoid repeating the myth more than the explanation requires.

How to defend against it

  • ►When you learn a claim was false, actively re-explain the event without it: what actually caused the fire? A retraction with no replacement story will not stick.
  • ►Ask whether the correction came from the same source at the same volume; if not, assume most of the audience still holds the original.
  • ►Use the Debunking Handbook structure when correcting others — fact first, brief warning, explanation of the error, fact again.
  • ►Prebunk where you can: knowing in advance that a claim is likely and why it is misleading reduces the influence it gains when it arrives.
  • ►Keep a personal list of claims you have seen corrected; revisit your reasoning on related topics, since the effect operates on inferences you have already drawn.

From the Defense Playbook

Prebunking (Self-Inoculation)takes practice

Expose yourself in advance to a weakened, clearly labelled dose of a manipulation technique together with its refutation, so that when the full-strength version arrives you recognize the move instead of being carried by it.

The Truth Sandwichminutes

When you have to correct a falsehood, open with the true statement, mention the falsehood once with a clear warning that it is false, and close by repeating the truth, so that the accurate version gets the prominent positions and the most repetitions.

Fact, Myth, Fallacy, Factminutes

The four-part debunking structure from the Debunking Handbook: state the fact, flag and state the myth once, name the specific reasoning trick that makes the myth misleading, and restate the fact, so the listener leaves with both the correct information and the means to spot the next version.

Do Not Repeat the Myth in the Headlineminutes

When you correct a falsehood, put the true statement in the headline, subject line, first sentence, and image, and keep the false claim out of those positions, because most of the audience will see only that part and will carry away whatever it says.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1420-1436 · link
    The warehouse-fire experiments and the finding that alternative explanations reduce the effect.
  2. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131 · link
    The review of continued influence and of what makes corrections effective.
  3. Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. Databrary / George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication
    The fact-myth-fallacy-fact debunking structure and the assessment that familiarity backfire is not a reliable effect.
  4. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation: The Iraq War 2003. Psychological Science, 16(3), 190-195
    The Iraq WMD example of retracted claims continuing to shape reasoning.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Continued Influence Effect in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Continued Influence Effect or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account