Individuals generally revise their misconceptions when corrected with carefully designed educational materials. However, early reports suggest that correcting COVID-19 misconceptions may be especially challenging, which may be due to conflicts with individuals’ moral values and emotions. This study explores the mechanisms and boundaries of correction effectiveness. Those highest in moral concerns for group cohesion or for individual freedoms were more likely to affectively or cognitively reject corrective information. Corrections of COVID-19 misconceptions should be carefully framed to connect with the morality of recipients and anticipate their emotional and cognitive reactions.
AguilarS. J.PolikoffM. S.SinatraG. M. (2019). Refutation texts: A new approach to changing public misconceptions about education policy. Educational Researcher, 48, 263–272.
2.
AhlerD. J.RoushC. E.SoodG. (2019, April). The micro-task market for lemons: Data quality on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.
3.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.BurkartD.JostJ. T.Van BavelJ. J. (2019). An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1802–1813.
4.
ChiM. T. (2013). Two kinds and four sub-types of misconceived knowledge, ways to change it, and the learning outcomes. In VosniadouS. (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61–82). New York: Routledge.
5.
CookJ.LewandowskyS. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8, 160–179.
6.
DalyM.RobinsonE. (2020). Psychological distress and adaptation to the COVID-19 crisis in the United States. Retrieved August5, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/79f5v
FlynnD. J.NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38, 127–150.
9.
GadarianS. K.GoodmanS. W.PepinskyT. B. (2020). Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Retrieved May11, 2020, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3562796
10.
HaidtJ. (2003). The moral emotions. In DavidsonR. J.SchererK. R.GoldsmithH. H. (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
HatemiP. K.CrabtreeC.SmithK. B. (2019). Ideology justifies morality: Political beliefs predict moral foundations. American Journal of Political Science, 63, 788–806.
12.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Publications.
IyerR.KolevaS.GrahamJ.DittoP.HaidtJ. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PloS One, 7, e42366. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
15.
Janoff-BulmanR.CarnesN. C. (2016). Social justice and social order: Binding moralities across the political spectrum. PloS One, 11, e0152479. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152479
16.
KendeouP.ButterfussR.KimJ.Van BoekelM. (2019). Knowledge revision through the lenses of the three-pronged approach. Memory & Cognition, 47, 33–46.
17.
KendeouP.SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.
18.
KendeouP.WalshE. K.SmithE. R.O’BrienE. J. (2014). Knowledge revision processes in refutation texts. Discourse Processes, 51, 374–397.
19.
PekrunR. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341.
20.
SharotT.SunsteinC. R. (2020). How people decide what they want to know. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 14–19.
21.
SinatraG. M.KienhuesD.HoferB. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123–138.
22.
SinatraG. M.SeyranianV. (2016). Warm change about hot topics: The role of motivation and emotion in attitude and conceptual change about controversial science topics. In CornoL.AndermanE. M. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 245–256). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
23.
SuldovskyB. (2017). The information deficit model and climate change communication. In Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
ThackerI.SinatraG. M.MuisK. R.DanielsonR. W.PekrunR.WinneP. H.ChevrierM. (2019). Using persuasive refutation texts to prompt attitudinal and conceptual change. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication.
25.
TippettC. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 951–970.
26.
TrevorsG. (2019). Psychological tribes and processes: Understanding why and how misinformation persists. In KendeouP.RobinsonD. (Eds.), Misinformation, “quackery,” and “fake news” in education (pp. 55–80). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
27.
TrevorsG. (2020). The roles of identity conflict, emotion, and threat in learning from refutation texts. Retrieved May11, 2020, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3555148
28.
WalterN.MurphyS. T. (2018). How to unring the bell: A meta-analytic approach to correction of misinformation. Communication Monographs, 85, 423–441.
WolskoC.AriceagaH.SeidenJ. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19.
31.
WoodT.PorterE. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41, 135–163.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
