ABSTRACT

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.

摘要

反驳文本的设计是为了便于对不准确的知识进行修改；然而，研究记录了适得其反的效果，即受访者在接受事实更正时变得不那么准确。在这里，我们探讨了在阅读因支持信息而异的实验反驳文本时，认知情绪是否介导了知识修正或适得其反的过程。我们要求 294 名在线读者报告他们对转基因食品的知识和态度，然后将他们随机分配到三种支持信息类型不同的反驳文本条件之一。我们记录了相对较低的知识 (19.7%) 和态度 (14%) 在各种条件下适得其反，并且没有发现支持信息类型之间适得其反的证据。无论支持信息的类型如何，所有文本都促进了知识修订，但没有差异地引发认知情绪。对于那些修改了他们不准确的知识的人来说，希望和惊喜在知识修改过程中起到了中介作用。然而，那些表现出适得其反的人比那些修改了他们不准确的知识的读者报告的愤怒和困惑要多得多。讨论了对研究和实践的影响。