ArticleNPJ science of learning2025
Investigating epistemic emotions experienced while reading refutation texts through a fine-grained measure of emotion.
Article in NPJ science of learning, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The current study addressed the often-overlooked role of epistemic emotions in refuting misinformation by replicating and expanding on the work of Trevors and Kendeou (2020). It broadened the participant pool beyond well-educated college students and introduced a novel dynamic measure, "DynamicEmo", to capture epistemic emotions experienced while reading refutation texts in a more fine-grained way. Results reaffirmed that positive, negative, and standard refutation texts (vs. non-refutation texts) effectively enhanced knowledge revision. Analysis using DynamicEmo revealed that paragraphs presenting inconsistent information (misinformation+correction) in refutation texts elicited activating (curiosity and confusion) or suppressed deactivating epistemic emotions (boredom). Notably, in-the-moment negative epistemic emotions, triggered by critical correct-outcome sentences, were negatively predictive of knowledge revision, highlighting the significance of emotions experienced during critical parts of refutation text reading. This study demonstrated the key role of epistemic emotions in knowledge revision, while offering more granular insights through dynamic emotion measurement compared to traditional post-hoc self-reports.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.