Susceptibility to long-term misinformation effect outside of the laboratory

Figures & data

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations

	1	2	3	4	M (SD)		Range
1. Misinformation effect					No (n=158)	Yes (n=55)
2. PSS-H	.09				1.68 (2.03)	2.11 (2.18)	0–11
3. PTES	.31*	.21*			13.30 (4.43)	16.64 (4.85)	0–24
4. Raven	−.26*	.02	−.18*		50.07 (5.28)	46.62 (6.22)	33–60
5. EPQ-N	.02	.39*	.06	−.02	3.29 (3.42)	3.44 (3.73)	0–16

Note. PSS-H=Posttraumatic Symptom Scale—hyperarousal subscale; PTES=Potentially Traumatizing Events Scale; Raven=Standard Progressive Matrices; EPQ-N=Eysenck Personality Questionnaire—neuroticism scale. The number of participants was smaller for the variable Raven (no=134, yes=42).

* p<.05.

Table 2 Logistic regression analyses predicting the misinformation effect

Model	B (SE)	Wald	p	OR (95% CI)
PSS-H	−0.07 (.10)	0.49	.49	0.93 (0.76–1.14)
PTES	0.12 (.05)	7.05	.01	1.13 (1.03–1.24)
PSS-H×PTES interaction	0.06 (.03)	4.64	.03	1.06 (1.01–1.12)
Raven	−0.10 (.03)	8.71	<.01	0.91 (0.85–0.97)

Note. PSS-H=Posttraumatic Symptom Scale—hyperarousal subscale; PTES=Potentially Traumatizing Events Scale; Raven=Standard Progressive Matrices; EPQ-N=Eysenck Personality Questionnaire—neuroticism scale.

Fig. 1 Plotted PSS-H×PTES interaction, with separate lines representing the percentiles of PSS-H, and the probability of the misinformation effect at the Y-axis.