References
- Alexander, P. A. (2019). The art (and science) of seduction: Why, when, and for whom seductive details matter. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 142–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3510
- Banister, F., & Ryan, C. (2001). Developing science concepts through story-telling. School Science Review, 83(302), 75–83.
- Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(1), 20–46. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1001_2
- Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
- Bohn-Gettler, C. M. (2019). Getting a grip: The PET framework for studying how reader emotions influence comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56(5–6), 386–401. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1611174
- Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Depending on my mood: Mood-driven influences on text comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(3), 562–577. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023458
- Bohn-Gettler, C. M., & Rapp, D. N. (2013). Emotion during reading and writing. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. International handbook of emotions in education(pp. 437-457). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148211.ch22
- Burro, R., Raccanello, D., Pasini, M., & Brondino, M. (2018). An estimation of a nonlinear dynamic process using latent class extended mixed models: Affect profiles after terrorist attacks. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 22(1), 35–52.
- Campion, N., Martins, D., & Wilhelm, A. (2009). Contradictions and predictions: Two sources of uncertainty that raise the cognitive interest of readers. Discourse Processes, 46(4), 341–368. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802629125
- Chang, Y., & Choi, S. (2014). Effects of seductive details evidenced by gaze duration. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 109(2014), 131–138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2014.01.005
- Eitel, A., Bender, L., & Renkl, A. (2019). Are seductive details seductive only when you think they are relevant? An experimental test of the moderating role of perceived relevance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3479
- Fontaine, J. R. J., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1050–1057. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02024.x
- Garner, R., Gillingham, M. G., & White, C. (1989). Effects of “seductive details” on macroprocessing and microprocessing in adults and children. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2
- Harp, S. F., & Maslich, A. A. (2005). The consequences of including seductive details during lecture. Teaching of Psychology, 32(2), 100–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3202_4
- Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1997). The role of interest in learning from scientific text and illustrations: On the distinction between emotional interest and cognitive interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.92
- Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414
- Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2001), 191–209. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114.
- Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
- Jaeger, A. J., Velazquez, M. N., Dawdanow, A., & Shipley, T. F. (2018). Sketching and summarizing to reduce memory for seductive details in science text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(7), 899–916. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000254
- Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2014). Do illustrations help or harm metacomprehension accuracy? Learning and Instruction, 34(2014), 58–73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.002
- Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an analogy can cause the illusion of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 52(5–6), 376–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1026679
- Ketzer-Nöltge, A., Schweppe, J., & Rummer, R. (2019). Is the seductive details effect moderated by mood? An eye-tracking study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3487
- Kintsch, W. (1980). Learning from text, levels of comprehension, or: Why anyone would read a story anyway. Poetics, 9(1–3), 87–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X(80)90013-3
- Kühl, T., Moersdorf, F., Römer, M., & Münzer, S. (2019). Adding emotionality to seductive details-consequences for learning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 48–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3477
- Landauer, T. K., McNamara, D. S., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Lehman, S., Schraw, G., McCrudden, M. T., & Hartley, K. (2007). Processing and recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(4), 569–587. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.07.002
- Lenth, R. (2020). Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means.R package version1.4.4. https://cran.r-project.org/package=emmeans
- Mason, L., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., & Zaccoletti, S. (2017). Emotional reactivity and comprehension of multiple online texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 58(2017), 10–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.07.002
- Mason, L., Zaccoletti, S., Scrimin, S., Tornatora, M. C., Florit, E., & Goetz, T. (2020). Reading with the eyes and under the skin: Comprehending conflicting digital texts. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(1), 89–101. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12399
- Mauss, I. B., & Robinson, M. D. (2009). Measures of emotion: A review. Cognition & Emotion, 23(2), 209–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930802204677
- Mayer, R. E. (2019). Taking a new look at seductive details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 139–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3503
- Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.187
- McCrudden, M. T. (2019). The effect of task relevance instructions on memory for text with seductive details. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3455
- Myers, D. G., & DeWall, C. N. (2018). Psychology, twelfth edition in modules. Worth Publishers.
- Park, B., Flowerday, T., & Brünken, R. (2015). Cognitive and affective effects of seductive details in multimedia learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 44(2015), 267–278. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.061
- Pekrun, R., Vogl, E., Muis, K. R., & Sinatra, G. M. (2017). Measuring emotions during epistemic activities: The epistemically-related emotion scales. Cognition and Emotion, 31(6), 1268–1276. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2016.1204989
- Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(3), 219–231. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.006
- Plass, J. L., & Kalyuga, S. (2019). Four ways of considering emotion in cognitive load theory. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 339–359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09473-5
- Rapp, D. N., & Mensink, M. C. (2011). Focusing effects from online and offline reading tasks. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 141–164). IAP Information Age Publishing.
- Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization, measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46(3), 168–184. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.587723
- Revelle, W. (2019). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research.R package version 1.9.12. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/
- Rey, G. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 216–237. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003
- Rey, G. D. (2014). Seductive details and attention distraction – An eye tracker experiment. Computers in Human Behavior, 32(2014), 133–144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.017
- Rowcliffe, S. (2004). Storytelling in science. School Science Review, 86(314), 121–126.
- Sanchez, C. A., & Wiley, J. (2006). An examination of the seductive details effect in terms of working memory capacity. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 344–355. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193412
- Schneider, S., Wirzberger, M., & Rey, G. D. (2019). The moderating role of arousal on the seductive detail effect in a multimedia learning setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3473
- Schraw, G. (1998). Processing and recall differences among seductive details. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.3
- Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Westfall, J., Aust, F., & Ben-Shachar, M. S. (2020). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments.R package version 0.26–0. https://cran.r-project.org/package=afex
- Sundararajan, N., & Adesope, O. (2020). Keep it coherent: A meta-analysis of the seductive details effect. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 707–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09522-4
- Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064001037
- Trevors, G., & Kendeou, P. (2020). The effects of positive and negative emotional text content on knowledge revision. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(9), 1326–1339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820913816
- Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Muijselaar, M. M. L. (2017). Exploring the relations between epistemic beliefs, emotions, and learning from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48(2017), 116–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.10.001
- Trevors, G. J., Muis, K. R., Pekrun, R., Sinatra, G. M., & Winne, P. H. (2016). Identity and epistemic emotions during knowledge revision: A potential account for the backfire effect. Discourse Processes, 53(5–6), 339–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1136507
- Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S (4th Ed.). Springer.
- Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., & Loderer, K. (2020). Surprised–curious–confused: Epistemic emotions and knowledge exploration. Emotion, 20(4), 625–641. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000578
- Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., Loderer, K., & Schubert, S. (2019). Surprise, curiosity, and confusion promote knowledge exploration: Evidence for robust effects of epistemic emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(2019), 2474. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02474
- Wang, Z. J., & Adesope, O. (2016). Does learners’ prior knowledge moderate the detrimental effects of seductive details in reading from text? A 2 by 3 study. International Journal of Instruction, 9(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.923a
- Wickman, H., & Henry, L. (2020). Tidyr: Tidy messy data. R package version 1.0.2. httpys://cran.r-project.org/package=tidyr
- Wiley, J., Sarmento, D., Griffin, T. D., & Hinze, S. R. (2017). Biology textbook graphics and their impact on expectations of understanding. Discourse Processes, 54(5–6), 463–478. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1319655
- Zaccoletti, S., Altoè, G., & Mason, L. (2019). The interplay of reading‐related emotions and updating in reading comprehension performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 663–682.https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12324