Knowledge Revision Through the Lenses of the Three-pronged Approach

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2018 Aug 18

PMID 30117115

Citations 17

Authors

Panayiota Kendeou

Reese Butterfuss

Jasmine Kim

Martin Van Boekel

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In the present study, we employed the three-pronged approach to determine the actual cognitive processes theorized in knowledge revision. First, the Knowledge Revision Components (KReC) framework was identified as the guiding theory. Second, think-aloud analysis highlighted at which points in refutation texts readers detected discrepancies between their incorrect, commonsense beliefs and the correct beliefs, and the exact processes with which they dealt with these discrepancies-successfully or unsuccessfully, as indicated by posttest scores. Third, corroborating reading-time data and posttest data demonstrated that the structure of the refutation texts facilitated the coactivation and integration of the explanation with the commonsense belief, resulting in knowledge revision. Finally, an analysis directly connected the processes identified during think-aloud to sentence reading times. These findings systematically identify the cognitive processes theorized during knowledge revision and, in doing so, provide evidence for the conditions for revision outlined in the KReC framework.

Citing Articles

Correcting fake news headlines after repeated exposure: memory and belief accuracy in younger and older adults.

Kemp P, Loaiza V, Kelley C, Wahlheim C Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):55.

PMID: 39183253 PMC: 11345346. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00585-3.

Knowledge revision processes during reading: How pictures influence the activation of outdated information.

Frick P, Kendeou P, Schuler A Mem Cognit. 2024; 53(2):547-567.

PMID: 38831159 PMC: 11868230. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01586-9.

Memory and belief updating following complete and partial reminders of fake news.

Kemp P, Sinclair A, Adcock R, Wahlheim C Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2024; 9(1):28.

PMID: 38713308 PMC: 11076432. DOI: 10.1186/s41235-024-00546-w.

Listening to Misinformation while Driving: Cognitive Load and the Effectiveness of (Repeated) Corrections.

Sanderson J, Bowden V, Swire-Thompson B, Lewandowsky S, Ecker U J Appl Res Mem Cogn. 2023; 12(3):325-334.

PMID: 37829768 PMC: 7615113. DOI: 10.1037/mac0000057.

Events shape long-term memory for story information.

Smith M, Kurby C, Bailey H Discourse Process. 2023; 60(2):141-161.

PMID: 37456554 PMC: 10343716. DOI: 10.1080/0163853x.2023.2185408.

References

Zwaan R, Madden C . Updating situation models. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004; 30(1):283-8. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.1.283. View

McNamara D, McDaniel M . Suppressing irrelevant information: knowledge activation or inhibition?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2004; 30(2):465-82. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.465. View

Sundermeier B, van den Broek P, Zwaan R . Causal coherence and the availability of locations and objects during narrative comprehension. Mem Cognit. 2005; 33(3):462-70. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193063. View

Kendeou P, van den Broek P . The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(7):1567-77. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193491. View

Rapp D, Kendeou P . Revising what readers know: updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Mem Cognit. 2008; 35(8):2019-32. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192934. View

OBrien E, Cook A, Gueraud S . Accessibility of outdated information. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(4):979-91. DOI: 10.1037/a0019763. View

Fox M, Ericsson K, Best R . Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods. Psychol Bull. 2010; 137(2):316-44. DOI: 10.1037/a0021663. View

Schooler J . Introspecting in the spirit of William James: comment on Fox, Ericsson, and Best (2011). Psychol Bull. 2011; 137(2):345-50. DOI: 10.1037/a0022390. View

Kendeou P, Smith E, OBrien E . Updating during reading comprehension: why causality matters. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012; 39(3):854-65. DOI: 10.1037/a0029468. View

10.

Rapp D, Hinze S, Kohlhepp K, Ryskin R . Reducing reliance on inaccurate information. Mem Cognit. 2013; 42(1):11-26. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0339-0. View

11.

Bohn-Gettler C, Kendeou P . The Interplay of Reader Goals, Working Memory, and Text Structure During Reading. Contemp Educ Psychol. 2014; 39(3):206-219. PMC: 4090711. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.05.003. View

12.

Fazio L, Brashier N, Payne B, Marsh E . Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2015; 144(5):993-1002. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000098. View

13.

Magliano J, Larson A, Higgs K, Loschky L . The relative roles of visuospatial and linguistic working memory systems in generating inferences during visual narrative comprehension. Mem Cognit. 2015; 44(2):207-19. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-015-0558-7. View

14.

Shtulman A, Harrington K . Tensions Between Science and Intuition Across the Lifespan. Top Cogn Sci. 2015; 8(1):118-37. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12174. View

15.

Van Boekel M, Lassonde K, OBrien E, Kendeou P . Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts. Mem Cognit. 2016; 45(1):168-181. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-016-0649-0. View

16.

Kintsch W . The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-integration model. Psychol Rev. 1988; 95(2):163-82. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.95.2.163. View

17.

Ratcliff R, McKoon G . A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychol Rev. 1988; 95(3):385-408. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.95.3.385. View

18.

Gillund G, Shiffrin R . A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. Psychol Rev. 1984; 91(1):1-67. View