The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions

Greg Trevors, Catherine Bohn-Gettler, Panayiota Kendeou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

8 Scopus citations

Abstract

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. This 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 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1966-1980
Number of pages15
JournalQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Volume74
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2021

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this work was provided by a postdoctoral fellowship to Greg Trevors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (756-2015-0633).

Publisher Copyright:
© Experimental Psychology Society 2021.

Keywords

  • Emotions
  • emotion induction
  • knowledge revision
  • misconceptions
  • refutation texts
  • vaccination

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The effects of experimentally induced emotions on revising common vaccine misconceptions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this