The Effects of Source Monitoring and Social Context on Factual Knowledge Integration
(2025) PSYP01 20251Department of Psychology
- Abstract (Swedish)
- The process of associative inference is one that is vulnerable to social biases and misinformation. Previous research has shown that associative inference, where separate yet related episodes are combined into unified memory representations, benefits from ingroup contexts relative to outgroup contexts. The present study investigated whether these effects arise from differences in source monitoring demands. Using a naturalistic associative inference paradigm with factual statements, 53 participants encoded pairs of facts presented by ingroup or outgroup members under fixed-group (low source monitoring) or mixed-group (high source monitoring) conditions. At retrieval, participants judged the veracity of integration statements (true vs.... (More)
- The process of associative inference is one that is vulnerable to social biases and misinformation. Previous research has shown that associative inference, where separate yet related episodes are combined into unified memory representations, benefits from ingroup contexts relative to outgroup contexts. The present study investigated whether these effects arise from differences in source monitoring demands. Using a naturalistic associative inference paradigm with factual statements, 53 participants encoded pairs of facts presented by ingroup or outgroup members under fixed-group (low source monitoring) or mixed-group (high source monitoring) conditions. At retrieval, participants judged the veracity of integration statements (true vs. false), provided confidence ratings, and identified the original source. Working memory capacity was also measured as a potential moderator. Contrary to expectations, no ingroup advantage was observed in associative inference accuracy. However, response times and confidence supported the presence of stronger memory signals for correct responses, and a systematic attribution bias emerged where accepted statements were more often attributed to ingroup sources, whereas rejected statements were more often attributed to outgroup sources. Source memory accuracy was overall higher for ingroup trials and mixed-group conditions, suggesting that increased source monitoring enhanced source discrimination. Exploratory analyses point toward working memory capacity moderating susceptibility to false alarms under heightened source monitoring demands. These findings highlight that while associative inference accuracy may not always reflect intergroup bias, source monitoring and attribution processes are strongly shaped by social context. The findings have implications for understanding susceptibility to misinformation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9212219
- author
- Bos, Camilla Victoria LU
- supervisor
-
- Ines Bramao LU
- organization
- course
- PSYP01 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- language
- English
- id
- 9212219
- date added to LUP
- 2025-09-15 15:33:07
- date last changed
- 2025-09-15 15:33:07
@misc{9212219,
abstract = {{The process of associative inference is one that is vulnerable to social biases and misinformation. Previous research has shown that associative inference, where separate yet related episodes are combined into unified memory representations, benefits from ingroup contexts relative to outgroup contexts. The present study investigated whether these effects arise from differences in source monitoring demands. Using a naturalistic associative inference paradigm with factual statements, 53 participants encoded pairs of facts presented by ingroup or outgroup members under fixed-group (low source monitoring) or mixed-group (high source monitoring) conditions. At retrieval, participants judged the veracity of integration statements (true vs. false), provided confidence ratings, and identified the original source. Working memory capacity was also measured as a potential moderator. Contrary to expectations, no ingroup advantage was observed in associative inference accuracy. However, response times and confidence supported the presence of stronger memory signals for correct responses, and a systematic attribution bias emerged where accepted statements were more often attributed to ingroup sources, whereas rejected statements were more often attributed to outgroup sources. Source memory accuracy was overall higher for ingroup trials and mixed-group conditions, suggesting that increased source monitoring enhanced source discrimination. Exploratory analyses point toward working memory capacity moderating susceptibility to false alarms under heightened source monitoring demands. These findings highlight that while associative inference accuracy may not always reflect intergroup bias, source monitoring and attribution processes are strongly shaped by social context. The findings have implications for understanding susceptibility to misinformation.}},
author = {{Bos, Camilla Victoria}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{The Effects of Source Monitoring and Social Context on Factual Knowledge Integration}},
year = {{2025}},
}