Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information

Summary Readers frequently encounter inaccuracies in texts that contradict what they should know to be true. The current project examined readers' moment‐by‐moment processing of inaccuracies and whether any difficulty with such material is reduced when readers are already familiar with accurate...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Applied cognitive psychology 2014-07, Vol.28 (4), p.558-568
Hauptverfasser: Jacovina, Matthew E., Hinze, Scott R., Rapp, David N.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 568
container_issue 4
container_start_page 558
container_title Applied cognitive psychology
container_volume 28
creator Jacovina, Matthew E.
Hinze, Scott R.
Rapp, David N.
description Summary Readers frequently encounter inaccuracies in texts that contradict what they should know to be true. The current project examined readers' moment‐by‐moment processing of inaccuracies and whether any difficulty with such material is reduced when readers are already familiar with accurate versions of that content. In two experiments, participants read stories that either accurately or inaccurately described the outcome of a well‐known historic event. Preceding story contexts supported accurate outcomes or introduced suspense to create uncertainty about outcome likelihoods. During initial readings, participants took longer to read inaccurate than accurate outcomes. But this difficulty was substantially reduced when suspenseful contexts called into question the likelihood of well‐known outcomes. Similar reading patterns emerged when participants read the exact same material after week‐long and 5‐minute delays. These results indicate that biasing contexts can influence readers' processing of inaccuracies for even familiar events. Rereading proves insufficient for encouraging reliance on accurate prior knowledge. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/acp.3035
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660012389</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1660012389</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5635-4e8ca42aa308a15d338c17488910254fbd8cf25c2d0bb2b1a9f47d5072e9840e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0V1LHDEUBuAgLbi1BX_CQCnYi7EnXzNJ72Sp1qJVy4rgTTibOdOOnU3WZBfrv29kFwuF0qucAw8vObyM7XM45ADiA_rloQSpd9iEg7U1tAJesAkYY2oFBnbZq5zvAMA2XEzY1XGMY3VO1exh8PSxmv2gahpDpvs1BU-5in31jbAbwvfqAENXlrRZ31enAb1fJ1xRGfuYFrgaYnjNXvY4ZnqzfffY9fGn2fRzfXZxcjo9Oqu9bqSuFRmPSiBKMMh1J6XxvFXGWA5Cq37eGd8L7UUH87mYc7S9ajtdziFrFJDcYweb3GWK5bN55RZD9jSOGCius-NNA8CFNPb_VGtltRCyKfTtX_QurlMohxSlbFFaNX8CfYo5J-rdMg0LTI-Og3uqwZUa3FMNhb7bBmL2OPYJgx_ysxemMRYEL67euIdhpMd_5rmj6eU2d-uHvKJfzx7TT9e0stXu5uuJ-6LO7ZVsb52SvwEkb6EZ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1549952546</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Jacovina, Matthew E. ; Hinze, Scott R. ; Rapp, David N.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jacovina, Matthew E. ; Hinze, Scott R. ; Rapp, David N.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Readers frequently encounter inaccuracies in texts that contradict what they should know to be true. The current project examined readers' moment‐by‐moment processing of inaccuracies and whether any difficulty with such material is reduced when readers are already familiar with accurate versions of that content. In two experiments, participants read stories that either accurately or inaccurately described the outcome of a well‐known historic event. Preceding story contexts supported accurate outcomes or introduced suspense to create uncertainty about outcome likelihoods. During initial readings, participants took longer to read inaccurate than accurate outcomes. But this difficulty was substantially reduced when suspenseful contexts called into question the likelihood of well‐known outcomes. Similar reading patterns emerged when participants read the exact same material after week‐long and 5‐minute delays. These results indicate that biasing contexts can influence readers' processing of inaccuracies for even familiar events. Rereading proves insufficient for encouraging reliance on accurate prior knowledge. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0888-4080</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0720</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acp.3035</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACPSED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Bias ; Biological and medical sciences ; Experimental psychology ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Information processing ; Knowledge ; Language ; Production and perception of written language ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reading</subject><ispartof>Applied cognitive psychology, 2014-07, Vol.28 (4), p.558-568</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. Jul-Aug 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5635-4e8ca42aa308a15d338c17488910254fbd8cf25c2d0bb2b1a9f47d5072e9840e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5635-4e8ca42aa308a15d338c17488910254fbd8cf25c2d0bb2b1a9f47d5072e9840e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Facp.3035$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Facp.3035$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,30999,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28689021$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jacovina, Matthew E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinze, Scott R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, David N.</creatorcontrib><title>Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information</title><title>Applied cognitive psychology</title><addtitle>Appl. Cognit. Psychol</addtitle><description>Summary Readers frequently encounter inaccuracies in texts that contradict what they should know to be true. The current project examined readers' moment‐by‐moment processing of inaccuracies and whether any difficulty with such material is reduced when readers are already familiar with accurate versions of that content. In two experiments, participants read stories that either accurately or inaccurately described the outcome of a well‐known historic event. Preceding story contexts supported accurate outcomes or introduced suspense to create uncertainty about outcome likelihoods. During initial readings, participants took longer to read inaccurate than accurate outcomes. But this difficulty was substantially reduced when suspenseful contexts called into question the likelihood of well‐known outcomes. Similar reading patterns emerged when participants read the exact same material after week‐long and 5‐minute delays. These results indicate that biasing contexts can influence readers' processing of inaccuracies for even familiar events. Rereading proves insufficient for encouraging reliance on accurate prior knowledge. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Information processing</subject><subject>Knowledge</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Production and perception of written language</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reading</subject><issn>0888-4080</issn><issn>1099-0720</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0V1LHDEUBuAgLbi1BX_CQCnYi7EnXzNJ72Sp1qJVy4rgTTibOdOOnU3WZBfrv29kFwuF0qucAw8vObyM7XM45ADiA_rloQSpd9iEg7U1tAJesAkYY2oFBnbZq5zvAMA2XEzY1XGMY3VO1exh8PSxmv2gahpDpvs1BU-5in31jbAbwvfqAENXlrRZ31enAb1fJ1xRGfuYFrgaYnjNXvY4ZnqzfffY9fGn2fRzfXZxcjo9Oqu9bqSuFRmPSiBKMMh1J6XxvFXGWA5Cq37eGd8L7UUH87mYc7S9ajtdziFrFJDcYweb3GWK5bN55RZD9jSOGCius-NNA8CFNPb_VGtltRCyKfTtX_QurlMohxSlbFFaNX8CfYo5J-rdMg0LTI-Og3uqwZUa3FMNhb7bBmL2OPYJgx_ysxemMRYEL67euIdhpMd_5rmj6eU2d-uHvKJfzx7TT9e0stXu5uuJ-6LO7ZVsb52SvwEkb6EZ</recordid><startdate>201407</startdate><enddate>201407</enddate><creator>Jacovina, Matthew E.</creator><creator>Hinze, Scott R.</creator><creator>Rapp, David N.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7T9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201407</creationdate><title>Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information</title><author>Jacovina, Matthew E. ; Hinze, Scott R. ; Rapp, David N.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5635-4e8ca42aa308a15d338c17488910254fbd8cf25c2d0bb2b1a9f47d5072e9840e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Information processing</topic><topic>Knowledge</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Production and perception of written language</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reading</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jacovina, Matthew E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinze, Scott R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rapp, David N.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Applied cognitive psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jacovina, Matthew E.</au><au>Hinze, Scott R.</au><au>Rapp, David N.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information</atitle><jtitle>Applied cognitive psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Appl. Cognit. Psychol</addtitle><date>2014-07</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>558</spage><epage>568</epage><pages>558-568</pages><issn>0888-4080</issn><eissn>1099-0720</eissn><coden>ACPSED</coden><abstract>Summary Readers frequently encounter inaccuracies in texts that contradict what they should know to be true. The current project examined readers' moment‐by‐moment processing of inaccuracies and whether any difficulty with such material is reduced when readers are already familiar with accurate versions of that content. In two experiments, participants read stories that either accurately or inaccurately described the outcome of a well‐known historic event. Preceding story contexts supported accurate outcomes or introduced suspense to create uncertainty about outcome likelihoods. During initial readings, participants took longer to read inaccurate than accurate outcomes. But this difficulty was substantially reduced when suspenseful contexts called into question the likelihood of well‐known outcomes. Similar reading patterns emerged when participants read the exact same material after week‐long and 5‐minute delays. These results indicate that biasing contexts can influence readers' processing of inaccuracies for even familiar events. Rereading proves insufficient for encouraging reliance on accurate prior knowledge. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1002/acp.3035</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0888-4080
ispartof Applied cognitive psychology, 2014-07, Vol.28 (4), p.558-568
issn 0888-4080
1099-0720
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1660012389
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Accuracy
Bias
Biological and medical sciences
Experimental psychology
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Information processing
Knowledge
Language
Production and perception of written language
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Reading
title Fool Me Twice: The Consequences of Reading (and Rereading) Inaccurate Information
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T08%3A35%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fool%20Me%20Twice:%20The%20Consequences%20of%20Reading%20(and%20Rereading)%20Inaccurate%20Information&rft.jtitle=Applied%20cognitive%20psychology&rft.au=Jacovina,%20Matthew%20E.&rft.date=2014-07&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=558&rft.epage=568&rft.pages=558-568&rft.issn=0888-4080&rft.eissn=1099-0720&rft.coden=ACPSED&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acp.3035&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1660012389%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1549952546&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true