Here’s Hoping It’s not Just Text Structure
The Role of Emotions in Knowledge Revision and the Backfire Effect
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11273161 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Neil G Jacobson (University of Southern California, corresponding author), Ian Thacker (0000-0002-2492-2929, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas, San Antonio), Gale M Sinatra (0000-0002-6545-587X, University of Southern California) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 13-35 |
| Publication date | 2022-02-07 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Discourse Processes (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0163-853X • E-ISSN: 1532-6950 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0163853x.2021.1925059 |
| OpenAlex | W3169608700 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 63 |
Refutation texts are designed to facilitate the revision of inaccurate knowledge; however, studies have documented backfire effects wherein respondents become less accurate when exposed to a factual correction compared to another. Here, we explored whether epistemic emotions mediated knowledge revision or backfire processes when reading experimental refutation texts that varied by supporting information. We asked 294 online readers to report their knowledge and attitudes about genetically modified foods before randomly assigning them to one of three refutation text conditions which varied in type of supporting information. We documented relatively low knowledge (19.7%) and attitude (14%) backfire across conditions and found no evidence of backfire effects among types of supporting information. All texts facilitated knowledge revision regardless of the type of supporting information but did not differentially elicit epistemic emotions. For those who revised their inaccurate knowledge, hope and surprise mediated the knowledge revision process. However, those who demonstrated a backfire effect reported significantly more anger and confusion than readers who revised their inaccurate knowledge. Implications for research and practice are discussed
Anger · Cognitive psychology · Confusion · Linguistics · Reading (process · Surprise · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Educational Strategies and Epistemologies · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Psychology · Social Psychology
International Handbook of Emotions in Education
Explanatory coherence
Debunking
Confusion can be beneficial for learning
Addressing Challenges to Public Understanding of Science
Ultrastructural Characterization of the Lower Motor System in a Mouse Model of Krabbe Disease
Refutation Text in Science Education
Better to be frustrated than bored
The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts
Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues
The curious case of climate change
Beyond Cold Conceptual Change
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
Measuring emotions during epistemic activities
Academic emotions.
The structure and function of explanations
Accommodation of a scientific conception
We Feel, Therefore We Learn
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis
Using persuasive refutation texts to prompt attitudinal and conceptual change
Required Sample Size to Detect the Mediated Effect
An Analysis of Data Quality
Cross‐National Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain1
Identity and Epistemic Emotions During Knowledge Revision
Getting a Grip
Knowledge Revision Processes in Refutation Texts
Noticing and Revising Discrepancies as Texts Unfold
Augmenting the Refutation Text Effect with Analogies and Graphics
Emotion Processes in Knowledge Revision
Individual Differences in Revising (and Maintaining) Accurate and Inaccurate Beliefs About Childhood Vaccinations
Bridging Reading Comprehension and Conceptual Change in Science Education
Promoting Conceptual Change in Science
Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions
When Corrections Fail
The Elusive Backfire Effect
| Unique citing works | 6 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,2 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |