The effectiveness of refutation texts to correct misconceptions among educators.

Ferrero, Marta; Hardwicke, Tom E; Konstantinidis, Emmanouil; Vadillo, Miguel A.

doi:10.1037/xap0000258

Cited by 29 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 59 publications

(109 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies include a follow-up (Step 4) that consists in administering the same neuromyth survey as in Step 1 and 3. Ferrero et al (2020a) first measured endorsement of 18 neuromyths and 18 neuro-hit survey statements (presented in random order) in a sample of in-service teachers (Step 1). Fortyfive days later, participants read refutation texts (Step 2).…”

Section: Are Refutation-based Interventions Effective At Dispelling Neuromyths and Are Corrective Effects Enduring In Time?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Rousseau

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neuromyths are misconceptions about the brain and learning, for instance Tailoring instruction to students' preferred “learning styles” (e.g., visual, auditory, kinesthetic) promotes learning. Recent reviews indicate that the high prevalence of beliefs in neuromyths among educators did not decline over the past decade. Potential adverse effects of neuromyth beliefs on teaching practices prompted researchers to develop interventions to dispel these misconceptions in educational settings. This paper provides a critical review of current intervention approaches. The following questions are examined: Does neuroscience training protect against neuromyths? Are refutation-based interventions effective at dispelling neuromyths, and are corrective effects enduring in time? Why refutation-based interventions are not enough? Do reduced beliefs in neuromyths translate in the adoption of more evidence-based teaching practices? Are teacher professional development workshops and seminars on the neuroscience of learning effective at instilling neuroscience in the classroom? Challenges, issues, controversies, and research gaps in the field are highlighted, notably the so-called “backfire effect,” the social desirability bias, and the powerful intuitive thinking mode. Future directions are outlined.

show abstract

Section: Are Refutation-based Interventions Effective At Dispelling Neuromyths and Are Corrective Effects Enduring In Time?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Rousseau

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results typically show that a direct retraction significantly reduces reliance on the critical information relative to the no-retraction control condition, but does not eliminate the influence down to the no-misinformation baseline (e.g., Ecker, Hogan, & Lewandowsky, 2017;Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Apai, 2011). Continued influence has also been demonstrated with real-world news (Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer, & Morales, 2005), common myths (Ferrero, Hardwicke, Konstantinidis, & Vadillo, 2020;Sinclair, Stanley, & Seli, 2019;Swire, Ecker, & Lewandowsky, 2017), political misconceptions (Ecker & Ang, 2019; also see Nyhan & Reifler, 2010;Wood & Porter, 2019), with subtle and implicit misinformation (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Chang, & Pillai, 2014;Rich & Zaragoza, 2016), false allegations (Thorson, 2016; but see Ecker & Rodricks, 2020), and when the misinformation is presented initially as a negation that is later reinstated .…”

Section: Continued Influence Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can You Believe it? An Investigation into the Impact of Retraction Source Credibility on the Continued Influence Effect

Ecker¹,

Antonio²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continued influence effect refers to the finding that people often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning even if the information has been retracted. The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of a retraction is determined by its credibility. In particular, we aimed to scrutinize previous findings suggesting that perceived trustworthiness but not perceived expertise of the retraction source determines a retraction’s effectiveness, and that continued influence arises only if a retraction is not believed. In two experiments, we found that indeed source trustworthiness but not source expertise influences retraction effectiveness, with retractions from low-trustworthiness sources entirely ineffective. We also found that retraction belief is indeed a predictor of continued reliance on misinformation, but that substantial continued influence effects can still occur with retractions designed to be and rated as highly credible.

show abstract

“…Results typically show that a direct retraction significantly reduces reliance on the critical information relative to the no-retraction control condition, but does not eliminate the influence down to the no-misinformation baseline (e.g., E c k e r , H o g a n , & L e w a n d o w s k y , 2 0 1 7 ; Ecker, Lewandowsky, & Apai, 2011). Continued influence has also been demonstrated with real-world news (Lewandowsky, Stritzke, Oberauer, & Morales, 2005), common myths (Ferrero, Hardwicke, Konstantinidis, & Vadillo, 2020;Sinclair, Stanley, & Seli, 2019;Swire, Ecker, & Lewandowsky, 2017), political misconceptions (Ecker & Ang, 2019; also see Ecker, Sze, & Andreotta, 2021;Nyhan & Reifler, 2010;Wood & Porter, 2019), with subtle and implicit misinformation (Ecker, Lewandowsky, Chang, & Pillai, 2014;Rich & Zaragoza, 2016), false allegations (Thorson, 2016; but see Ecker & Rodricks, 2020), and when the misinformation is presented initially as a negation that is later reinstated .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect

Ecker

Antonio

2021

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The continued influence effect refers to the finding that people often continue to rely on misinformation in their reasoning even if the information has been retracted. The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which the effectiveness of a retraction is determined by its credibility. In particular, we aimed to scrutinize previous findings suggesting that perceived trustworthiness but not perceived expertise of the retraction source determines a retraction's effectiveness, and that continued influence arises only if a retraction is not believed. In two experiments, we found that source trustworthiness but not source expertise indeed influences retraction effectiveness, with retractions from low-trustworthiness sources entirely ineffective. We also found that retraction belief is indeed a predictor of continued reliance on misinformation, but that substantial continued influence effects can still occur with retractions designed to be and rated as highly credible.

show abstract

The effectiveness of refutation texts to correct misconceptions among educators.

Cited by 29 publications

References 59 publications

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Interventions to Dispel Neuromyths in Educational Settings—A Review

Can You Believe it? An Investigation into the Impact of Retraction Source Credibility on the Continued Influence Effect

Can you believe it? An investigation into the impact of retraction source credibility on the continued influence effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About