Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

How do readers handle incorrect information during reading?

David N Rapp1

  • 1School of Education and Social Policy, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. rapp@northwestern.edu

Memory & Cognition
|May 22, 2008
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Understanding and challenging epistemically suspect beliefs: A call for expanding interdisciplinary research.

Journal of psychopathology and clinical science·2026
Same author

The truth sandwich format does not enhance the correction of misinformation.

Journal of educational psychology·2025
Same author

Confidence as a metacognitive contributor to and consequence of misinformation experiences.

Current opinion in psychology·2023
Same author

Editorial: The psychology of fake news on social media, who falls for it, who shares it, why, and can we help users detect it?

Frontiers in psychology·2023
Same author

Cause typicality and the continued influence effect.

Journal of experimental psychology. Applied·2022
Same author

Story stimuli for instantiating true and false beliefs about the world.

Behavior research methods·2022
Same journal

Limited protective effects of multilingualism against age-related cognitive decline.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Validation of illustrated texts: Can pictures raise awareness of inconsistencies?

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

4I remember (and forget) your happy smiling face: Directed forgetting of emotionally expressive faces of in-group and out-group members.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Identity in the spotlight: Matching faces without overlapping features.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

Test delay and change awareness moderate retroactive and proactive memory effects.

Memory & cognition·2026
Same journal

The Deese/Roediger-McDermott (DRM) illusion in short-term memory: Opposite effects of retention interval on true and false recognition.

Memory & cognition·2026
See all related articles

Readers process information inconsistent with their knowledge by taking longer to read inaccurate historical outcomes. Suspenseful contexts reduced this reading time difference, showing prior knowledge influences how people handle incorrect information.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Reading Comprehension
  • Knowledge Revision

Background:

  • Readers often encounter information contradicting their existing knowledge.
  • Research typically focuses on how texts correct inaccurate beliefs.
  • This study investigates how readers process information that contradicts accurate prior knowledge.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine how individuals process incorrect information during reading.
  • To investigate the influence of prior knowledge and contextual factors on processing accuracy-inconsistent information.
  • To understand the consequences of encountering incorrect information in texts.

Main Methods:

  • Three experiments were conducted using historical scenarios.
  • Participants read stories with historically accurate or inaccurate outcomes.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Contextual variations included support for accuracy or suspenseful elements challenging accuracy.

    • Main Results:

    • Participants exhibited longer reading times for inaccurate outcomes compared to accurate ones.
    • Suspenseful contexts attenuated the difference in reading times between accurate and inaccurate outcomes.
    • Contextual influence was stronger when scenarios were novel, even when prior knowledge was engaged.

    Conclusions:

    • Prior knowledge plays a significant role in how readers process and respond to incorrect information.
    • Textual context, especially when novel or suspenseful, can modulate the impact of inaccurate information.
    • Encountering incorrect information can have lasting effects on readers' understanding and knowledge base.