Unwanted Beliefs: Age Differences in Beliefs of False Information
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to test the Spinozan model of believing. Because of their reduced cognitive resources, older adults were predicted to be more likely than young adults to believe false information. Experiment 1 used a dispositional attribution paradigm to test this hypothesis. Young and older adults were exposed to both true and false (either positive or negative) trait information about the target persons. Participants then made dispositional ratings and evaluated the target persons on overall likeability scales. Results supported the Spinozan model of believing. Older adults were more likely than young adults to believe false information and their dispositional ratings were reliably biased by the valence of false information. Experiment 2 further examined whether these false beliefs of older adults were actually conscious beliefs. It was found that older adults consciously recollected the false statements as true and these false beliefs mediated age differences in dispositional attribution.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A recent study on aging found that older adults were more likely than young adults to believe false information and their dispositional ratings were reliably biased by the valence of false information.
“For instance, a recent study on how aging affects belief found that ''[o]lder adults were more likely than young adults to believe false information and their dispositional ratings were reliably biased by the valence of false information'' (Chen 2002, 217).”
From INFORMATION WITHOUT TRUTH (2010) · cites this paper as Chen 2002
Statements to the effect that nonnatural information can be false are widespread in many sciences of mind.
“Statements to the effect that nonnatural information can be false are widespread in many sciences of mind.”
From INFORMATION WITHOUT TRUTH (2010) · cites this paper as Chen 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SCARANTINO, A., & PICCININI, G. (2010) · Metaphilosophy · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01632.x · Cited by 119 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, Y.
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Yiwei
- ORCID
- Chen, Yiwei
- Venue
- Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-10
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-230
- ISSN
- 0928-9917 (ISSN-L)
- 1382-5585
- 1744-4128
- OpenAlex
- W2015953720
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Keywords
- false belief, age differences, dispositional attribution, older adults, cognitive aging, misinformation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
