The effects of positive and negative emotional text content on knowledge revision

Abstract

Across three experiments, we sought to determine the effects of positive and negative emotional content in refutation texts on misconceptions about vaccines. The addition of negative emotional content to texts that identify, refute, and explain vaccine misconceptions improved knowledge revision observed during reading (Experiment 1). However, the addition of positive emotional content to refutation texts weakened this effect (Experiment 2). A direct comparison between negative and positive emotional content provided corroborating evidence for these findings (Experiment 3). Across experiments, results show that all refutation texts (with or without positive or negative emotional content) improved learning assessed after reading. These findings show the differential effects of emotional content on processing misconceptions about an important socio-scientific topic and provide consistent support for refutation texts as a potentially useful tool in these corrective efforts.

Rethinking the Role of Knowledge in the Literacy Classroom

“…However, there are times when information students encounter in text conflicts with their existing knowledge. When that happens, students must either reject that conflicting information, which would be particularly appropriate if the texts reflect inequities or include inaccurate information, or revise what they thought was accurate (Kendeou & O’Brien, 2014; Trevors & Kendeou, 2020). For example, a young student had come to believe that Christopher Columbus was the first person to arrive in North America.…”

The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

“…Following Trevors and Kendeou (2020), each of the nine text trials began with the word READY in the centre of the screen and consisted of one whole text (Introduction to Conclusion) that was segmented into lines of approximately seven words each. Participants were instructed to read for comprehension at their normal pace.…”

“…Prior knowledge. Knowledge tests were adopted from a previous study on vaccine misconceptions (Trevors & Kendeou, 2020). Participants were first asked to complete a prior knowledge pre-test to assess their misconceptions about vaccines.…”

“…Texts. Texts and design were adopted from a prior study (Trevors & Kendeou, 2020) and consisted of nine narrativeinformational documents, each correcting one common misconception about vaccines (e.g., "multiple vaccines won't overwhelm the body") in a dialogue between two characters (see Supplemental Appendix A for an example text). All texts began with an introduction section that established the context of the narrative (M = 88 words, SD = 9).…”

“…Rather than being more difficult to correct, retractions of negative misinformation are as effective as retractions of non-emotional misinformation (Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Apai, 2011) and more effective when there is an emotional congruency between negative misinformation and general mood of depressive ruminators (Chang, Ecker, & Page, 2019). In a similar vein, negative emotional words embedded in refutation texts augmented cognitive revision processes and attitude change over positive or neutral words (Sangalang, Ophir, & Cappella, 2019;Trevors & Kendeou, 2020), which may reflect how negative emotion specifically resulted in heightened activation for correct concepts. Automated or self-evaluated analysis of facial expressions after presentation of contradictory information showed higher levels of negative affect, including sadness, disgust, and confusion, which in turn resulted in higher levels of learning (D'Mello, Lehman, Pekrun, & Graesser, 2014) and knowledge revision (Chiu, Liaw, Yu, & Chou, 2019).…”