Reading standard, positive, or negative refutation texts yields significantly higher open-ended explanation scores than reading non-refutation texts in adults¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-27 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Participants gained significantly higher open-ended explanation posttest scores with standard (b = 1.40), positive (b = 1.00), and negative (b = 1.05) refutation texts than with non-refutation texts. → Jheng 2025
Evidence¶
Jheng 2025¶
Jheng, Y.-L., Catrysse, L., Van de Cruys, S., Kendeou, P., Poels, K. & Gijbels, D. (2025). Investigating epistemic emotions experienced while reading refutation texts through a fine-grained measure of emotion. npj Science of Learning 10, 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-025-00324-3
q3 · i? · causal · r2
Preregistered online experiment with 56 Prolific adults reading eight texts (two of each condition); mixed-effects models with pretest, condition, age, and education as fixed effects showed "significantly higher scores in open-ended explanation questions" for all refutation conditions versus non-refutation.
"results of thepostExplanationindicated participants gained significantly higher scores in open-ended explanation questions when exposed to standard refutation (b =1 . 4 0 ,p < 0.001), positive refutation ( b =1 . 0 0 ,p = 0.005), and negative refutation texts ( b = 1.05, p = 0.002) compared to non-refutation texts."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Negative in-the-moment emotions toward correct-outcome sentences predict significantly lower open-ended knowledge revision scores — related
- Reading refutation texts (standard, positive, or negative) yields significantly higher combined True/False-plus-explanation scores than non-refutation texts — related
- Instruction that confronts science misconceptions (conceptual-conflict interventions, refutation text) produces conceptual change more often than standard exposition — a broader claim this one bears on
- Refutation text type shows no significant effect on binary True/False posttest scores — related
- Text condition shapes in-the-moment epistemic emotions: negative refutation texts raise anxiety and frustration, positive refutation raises curiosity and enjoyment, and non-refutation raises boredom and neutral emotion — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
refutation-texts-explanation-knowledge-revision-adults |
title |
Reading standard, positive, or negative refutation texts yields significantly higher open-ended explanation scores than reading non-refutation texts in adults |
description |
Reading standard, positive, or negative refutation texts yields significantly higher open-ended explanation scores than reading non-refutation texts in adults |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
source_checked |
2026-10-27 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-27 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jheng-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.