Using persuasive refutation texts to prompt attitudinal and conceptual change.

Thacker, Ian; Sinatra, Gale M.; Muis, Krista R.; Danielson, Robert W.; Pekrun, Reinhard; Winne, Philip H.; Chevrier, Marianne

doi:10.1037/edu0000434

Cited by 39 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, higher levels of positive emotions like enjoyment and curiosity predict knowledge revision indirectly via approach goal orientation, motivation, engagement, self-reported elaboration, and critical thinking (Muis et al, 2018; Taasoobshirazi, Heddy, Bailey, & Farley, 2016). Similarly, reading a refutation text is associated with higher levels of positive emotions, lower negative emotions, higher conceptual knowledge, and more favourable attitudes consistent with the presented evidence (Broughton, Sinatra, & Nussbaum, 2013; Heddy, Danielson, Sinatra, & Graham, 2017; Thacker et al, 2020). Conversely, when corrective messages conflict with valued beliefs, negative activating emotions like anger, anxiety, and stress are experienced, which may lead to derogation of corrective messages and lower learning gains (Nauroth, Gollwitzer, Bender, & Rothmund, 2014; Trevors, 2020; Trevors, Muis, Pekrun, Sinatra, & Winne, 2016; Weeks, 2015).…”

Section: Inconsistent Relations Between Emotions and Knowledge Revisionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

Trevors

Bohn-Gettler

Kendeou

2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge revision is the process of updating incorrect prior knowledge in light of new, correct information. Although theoretical and empirical knowledge has advanced regarding the cognitive processes involved in revision, less is known about the role of emotions, which have shown inconsistent relations with key revision processes. The present study examined the effects of experimentally induced emotions on online and offline knowledge revision of vaccination misconceptions. Before reading refutation and non-refutation texts, 96 individuals received either a positive, negative, or no emotion induction. Findings showed that negative emotions, more than positive emotions, resulted in enhanced knowledge revision as indicated by greater ease of integrating correct information during reading and higher comprehension test scores after reading. Findings are discussed with respect to contemporary frameworks of knowledge revision and emotion in reading comprehension and implications for educational practice.

show abstract

Section: Inconsistent Relations Between Emotions and Knowledge Revisionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

Trevors

Bohn-Gettler

Kendeou

2021

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our own work, we have found similar results. For example, in one study, we found that positively framed persuasive text tended to promote greater learning gains especially when the controversial science topic was aligned with prior attitudes (Thacker et al, 2019). In another study, we found that source trustworthiness was related to prior perceptions about climate change, a topic about which individuals tend to hold valenced prior attitudes (Lombardi, Seyranian, & Sinatra, 2014).…”

Section: What Is the Current State Of Instruction On How To Scientifically Evaluate Online Information?mentioning

confidence: 90%

Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments

Sinatra

Lombardi

2020

Educational Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When individuals have questions about scientific issues, they often search the Internet. Evaluating sources of information and claims they find has become more difficult in the post-truth era. Students are often taught source evaluation techniques, but the proliferation of "fake news" has resulted in a misinformation arms race. As searchers get more sophisticated identifying misleading information, so do purveyors of information who intend to mislead. We draw on a theoretical model of plausibility judgments and current theory and research in source evaluation to suggest that the post-truth era elevates the need for critical evaluation of online information about scientific issues. We argue that explicitly reappraising plausibility judgments may be a crucial addition to evaluating the connections between sources of information and knowledge claims. Individuals who search for and read a scientific article online should ask themselves: Is this explanation plausible, and how do I know?We're not living through a crisis about what is true, we're living through a crisis about how we know whether something is true. 1

show abstract

“…Beyond revising misconceptions, corrections such as refutation texts typically have positive effects on knowledge, attitudes, and support for related policies (Aguilar et al, 2019; Thacker et al, 2019; Walter & Murphy, 2018; Wood & Porter, 2019). However, several prior attempts to correct misconceptions about controversial or emotionally laden topics have failed (Cook & Lewandowsky, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correcting COVID-19 Misconceptions Requires Caution

Trevors

Duffy

2020

Educational Researcher

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals generally revise their misconceptions when corrected with carefully designed educational materials. However, early reports suggest that correcting COVID-19 misconceptions may be especially challenging, which may be due to conflicts with individuals’ moral values and emotions. This study explores the mechanisms and boundaries of correction effectiveness. Those highest in moral concerns for group cohesion or for individual freedoms were more likely to affectively or cognitively reject corrective information. Corrections of COVID-19 misconceptions should be carefully framed to connect with the morality of recipients and anticipate their emotional and cognitive reactions.

show abstract

Using persuasive refutation texts to prompt attitudinal and conceptual change.

Cited by 39 publications

References 66 publications

The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

Evaluating sources of scientific evidence and claims in the post-truth era may require reappraising plausibility judgments

Correcting COVID-19 Misconceptions Requires Caution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About