Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fragile knowledge and conflicting evidence: what effects do contiguity and personal characteristics of museum visitors have on their processing depth?

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Until recently, museums mainly communicated well-established knowledge. Current science, however, is characterized by a rapid knowledge increase, so that we often have to deal with fragile and inconsistent knowledge. In order to develop exhibitions that encourage visitors to process information in a differentiated way, museums need to know how visitors deal with conflicting information. Furthermore, museum professionals need information on personal and situational factors that may promote the processing of such information. We tested whether conflict processing is influenced by personal characteristics such as situational interest, epistemological beliefs, tolerance of ambiguity, and self-efficacy on the one hand and by situational conditions such as the spatial arrangement of information on the other hand. In two science museums and one museum of cultural history, text pairs were displayed that described a topic from conflicting perspectives. The spatial distance between the two texts was manipulated. Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires captured the personal characteristics of 323 visitors and the way they dealt with conflicting information. The results showed that a majority of the visitors perceived a conflict, and a large proportion was willing to process the information at a deeper level. Sophisticated epistemological beliefs, a high tolerance of ambiguity, and high self-efficacy were found to promote situational interest in conflicting information. High situational interest, in turn, promoted a tendency to process deeply. Placing text pairs in close proximity had a positive effect on the processing depth in science museums but not in the museum of cultural history. A possible explanation lies in the higher density of additional and potentially interfering information in the science museums compared to the museum of cultural history.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The questionnaire also collected data on other scales which are not of importance for this article and are only mentioned partly in connection with the imputation.

  2. These scales were also included in the questionnaire but are not relevant in the present context.

  3. For each descriptive quality criterion, the average fit indices and standard deviations over the 20 data sets were computed.

References

  • Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, S. (2002). Looking for learning in visitor talk: A methodological exploration. In G. Leinhardt, K. Crowley, & K. Knutson (Eds.), Learning Conversations in Museums (pp. 259–303). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvermann, D. E. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Anmarkrud, Ø. & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Prediction of learning and comprehension when adolescents read multiple texts: The roles of word-level processing, strategic approach, and reading motivation. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., 1–28. doi:10.1007/s11145-012-9371-x.

  • Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Coherence: Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). Research challenges in the use of multiple documents. Information Design Journal, 19(1), 62–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caravita, S., & Halldén, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 89–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 623–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, M. (1990). Beyond "Aha": Motivating museum visitors. In B. Serrell (Ed.), What Research Says About Learning in Science Museums (pp. 10–11). Washington DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, A. E., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denissen, J. J. A., Zarrett, N. R., & Eccles, J. S. (2007). I like to do it, I’m able, and I know I am: Longitudinal couplings between domain-specific achievement, self-concept, and interest. Child Development, 78, 430–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., & Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and comprehension: Contribution of text variables to the illusion of knowing. Memory and Cognition, 12, 355–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J. H., & Dierking, L. D. (Eds.). (2000). Learning from museums. Visitor experiences and the making of meaning. Walnut Creek: AltaMira.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, C. R., & Bloom, C. P. (1988). Causal reasoning in the comprehension of simple narrative texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 235–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality, 18, 108–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginns, P. (2006). Integration information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16, 511–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C. (2007). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading Comprehension Strategies (pp. 3–26). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 163–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grüniger, R., Specht, I., Schnotz, W., & Lewalter, D. (2013). Personale Bedingungen der Verarbeitung von fragilem Wissen in Museen. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 41(1), 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutwill, J. P. (2008). Challenging a common assumption of hands-on exhibits. How counterintuitive phenomena can undermine inquiry. Journal of Museum Education, 33, 187–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 3, 414–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (1998). Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. The Educational Psychology Series. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S. (2000). An interest researcher's perspective: The effects of extrinsic and intrinsic factors on motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance (pp. 309–339). San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isberner, M.-B., Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2013). Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: Graphs as plausibility cues. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition.

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (2004). Reflective judgment: Theory and research on the development of epistemic assumptions through adulthood. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and Brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development: Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learning and Instruction, 12, 383–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 861–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Gyoungho, Park, Sang-Suk, Kim, Jung-Whan, Kwon, Hyeok-Gu, & Kwon, Jae-Sool (1999). The Development of an Instrument for the Measuring Student's Cognitive Conflict Levels. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Boston, MA, March 28–31, 1999). Korea National University of Education.

  • Lewalter, D., & Geyer, C. (2009). Motivationale Aspekte von schulischen Besuchen in naturwissenschaftlich-technischen Museen. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 12, 28–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, A. P. (1970). Revised scale for ambiguity tolerance: Reliability and validity. Psychological Reports, 26, 791–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues. The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivations for learning. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction (pp. 223–253). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia Learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niegemann, H. M., Domagk, S., Hessel, S., Hein, A., Hupfer, M. & Zobel, A. (2008). Kompendium multimediales Lernen. Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Noschka-Roos, A. (2001). Bausteine eines besucherorientierten Informationskonzepts. In U. Schwarz & P. Teufel (Hrsg.), Handbuch Museografie und Ausstellungsgestaltung (S. 88–113). Ludwigsburg: avedition.

  • O'Brian, E. J., & Albrecht, J. E. (1991). The role of context in accessing antecedents in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 94–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Øistein, A., McCrudden, M., Bråten, I. & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). Task-oriented reading of multiple documents: online comprehension processes and offline products. Instructional Science: An International Journal of Learning and Cognition., 10.

  • Pieschel, S., Stahl, E., & Bromme, R. (2008). Epistemological beliefs and self-regulated learning with hypertext. Metacognition and Learning, 3, 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New Perspectives on Conceptual Change (Advances in Learning and Instruction Series) (pp. 33–50). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfundt, H., & Duit, R. (1991). Bibliography: Student’s Alternative Frameworks and Science Education. Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radant, M. & Dalbert, C. (2006, September). Dimensionen der Komplexitätstoleranz: Ergebnisse einer Synopse von Persönlichkeitskonstrukten. Vortrag für den 45. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Nürnberg, 2005.

  • Richter, T. & Schroeder, S. (2008). Falschinformation. In N. Krämer, S. Schwan, D. Unz & M. Suckfüll (Hrsg.), Schlüsselbegriffe der Medienpsychologie (S. 134–138). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

  • Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design theories and models. An overview of their current status. Mahwah, NJ. Erlbaum.

  • Reis, J. (1997). Ambiguitätstoleranz. Beiträge zur Entwicklung eines Persönlichkeitskonstrukts. Heidelberg: Asanger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richter, T. (2007). Epistemologische Einschätzungen beim Textverstehen (unveränderter Nachdruck der ersten Auflage 2003/zweite Auflage). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1990). Thematisches Interesse, Variablen des Leseprozesses und Textverstehen. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 37(2), 304–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (1996). Motivation und Lernen mit Texten. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 197–222). New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (1982). How do different readers learn with different text organizations? In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse Processing (pp. 87–97). New York: Elsevier Science Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. (1984). Comparative instructional text organization. In H. Mandl, N. L. Stein, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Learning and Comprehension of Text (pp. 53–81). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnotz, W. & Preuß, A. (1997). Task-dependent construction of mental models as a basis for conceptual change. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(2), 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schommer-Aitkins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal Epistemology (pp. 103–118). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M., & Gagnon, N. (1999). Detecting causal inconsistencies in scientific text. In R. S. Goldmann, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative Comprehension, Causality, and Coherence. Essays in Honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 179–194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. Duschl & R. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology and Educational Theory and Practice (pp. 147–176). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The Uses of Argument (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. F. (1994). Mental models of the day/night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstr. 7, D-76829, Landau, Germany

    Rahel Grüninger & Wolfgang Schnotz

  2. Fachgebiet Gymnasialpädagogik, TUM School of Education, TU Munich, Arcisstr. 21, D-80333, Munich, Germany

    Inga Specht & Doris Lewalter

Authors
  1. Rahel Grüninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Inga Specht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Doris Lewalter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolfgang Schnotz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rahel Grüninger.

Additional information

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schnotz. University of Koblenz-Landau, Faculty of Psychology, Fortstr. 7, D-76829 Landau, Germany. E-mail: schnotz@uni-landau.de; Homepage: http://www.paeps.uni-landau.de/

Current themes of research:

Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures. Knowledge acquisition from multiple representations. Knowledge acquisition with conflicting information. Multimedia learning. Learning with hypermedia. Learning with animation.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Elen, J., & Schnotz, W. (2011). Compensation mechanisms when interacting with learning aids. World Journal of Education, 1(1), 119–128.

Schnotz, W. (2011). Colorful Bouquets in Multimedia Research: A Closer Look at the Modality Effect. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie. 25, 269–276.

Schroeder, S., Richter, T., McElvany, N., Hachfeld, A., Baumert , J., Schnotz, W., Horz , H., & Ullrich, M. (2011). Teachers? Beliefs, instructional behaviors, and students? Engagement in learning from texts with instructional pictures. Learning and Instruction, 21, 403–415.

Clarebout, G., Horz, H., Elen. J., & Schnotz, W. (2010) The relation between self-regulation and the embedding of support devices in learning environments. Educational technology: Research and Development, 58, 573–587.

Dutke, S., Baadte, C., Hähnel, A., von Hecker, U., & Rinck, M. (2010). Using diagnostic text information to constrain situation models. Discourse Processes, 47, 510–544.

Prof. Dr. Doris Lewalter. TU Munich, TUM School of Education, Fachgebiet Gymnasialpädagogik, Arcisstr. 21, D-80333 Munich, Germany. Email: doris.lewalter@tum.de; Homepage: www.gympaed.edu.tum.de/

Current themes of research:

Conditions, processes and results of teaching and learning inside and outside the school environment from a motivational perspective. Support of learning and motivation at secondary schools by out-of-school learning environments like museums, science centers, and student labs. Education research and evaluation in informal learning environments.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Lewalter, D. & Scholta, D. (2009) The influence of feedback and goal setting on situational interest and self-determined motivation in the CBL context. In M. Wosnitza, A. Karabenick , A Efklides & P. Nenniger (Eds.) Contemporary Motivation Research: From Global to Local Perspectives. Göttingen: Hogrefe. (pp.229-248).

Lewalter, D. (2003). Cognitive strategies for learning from static and dynamic visuals. Learning and Instruction, 13, pp. 177–189.

Rahel Grüninger, Dipl.-Psych. University of Koblenz-Landau, Faculty of Psychology, Fortstr. 7, D-76829 Landau, Germany. Email: grueninger@uni-landau.de; Homepage: http://www.paeps.uni-landau.de/

Current themes of research:

Acquisition of knowledge from picture and text. Personal conditions of learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Grüninger, R., Specht, I., Schnotz, W. & Lewalter, D. (2013). Personale Bedingungen der Verarbeitung von fragilem Wissen in Museen. Unterrichtswissenschaften, 41(1), 2–19.

Grüninger, Rahel, Specht, Inga, Lewalter, Doris & Schnotz, Wolfgang (2011, September). Situative und personale Faktoren im Umgang mit konfligierender Information Vortrag gehalten auf der 76. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung der DGfE, Klagenfurt.

Grüninger, Rahel, Specht, Inga, Lewalter, Doris & Schnotz, Wolfgang (2011, Juli). Fragile Knowledge and Conflicting Evidence: How Do Museum Visitors Deal with Cognitive Conflicts? Vortrag gehalten auf dem 12th European Congress of Psychology, Istanbul.

Inga Specht, M.A. TU Munich, TUM School of Education, Fachgebiet Gymnasialpädagogik, Arcisstr. 21, D-80333 Munich, Germany. Email: inga.specht@tum.de; Homepage: www.gympaed.edu.tum.de/

Current themes of research:

Evaluation of informal learning environments. Learning processes in informal learn environments. Text and picture comprehension.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Grüninger, R., Specht, I., Schnotz, W. & Lewalter, D. (2013). Personale Bedingungen der Verarbeitung von fragilem Wissen in Museen. Unterrichtswissenschaften, 41(1), 2–9.

Specht, Inga, Grüninger, Rahel, Lewalter, Doris, Schnotz, Wolfgang & Trischler, Helmuth (2011, September). The challenge of conflicting science information: how do museum visitors react? Vortrag gehalten auf der 9th Conference of the European Sience Education Research Association (ESERA), Lyon (5.–9. September 2011).

Appendices

Appendix A

Interview guide

N.B.: The interview text and questionnaire text are printed in black.

The structural classification, instructions for implementation and comments are printed in blue. Their purpose is to provide internal structure; the respondent cannot see them.

Hello! We are carrying out interviews with visitors to find out their opinions about specific exhibits. You have just read texts about the topic __. May we ask you some questions about them?

(If yes) I would like to record the interview, so that I don’t have to write everything down.

The audio recordings are, of course, made anonymously and subsequently deleted. Is that okay with you?

(If yes, start the interview)

(If no: start the interview, taking notes) OK!

(Say the interview number or write it on the questionnaire)

  1. 1.

    How comprehensible did you find the texts?

  2. 2.

    Which grade would you give the first text that you read, the___ (left one, right one, the first one you read …text A) (very good to inadequate)? And which grade would you give the text (on the left, on the right, that you read second…text B)? (very good to inadequate)

    (If the grade “very good” or “good” is given) What did you like about the first/second text?

    (If the grade “satisfactory” or worse is given) What didn’t you like about the first/second text?

  3. 3.

    How credible did you find both of the texts?

  4. 4.

    Which grade would you give the first text (text A) and which grade would you give the other text (text B) if you were rating their credibility?

    (If the grade “satisfactory” or worse is given) What specifically did you not find credible?

  5. 5.

    Did the text provide information on the topic ___ that was new to you personally?

  6. 6.

    Have the texts changed your view on the topic ___?

    (N.B.: ascending scale from now onwards!)

  7. 7.

    How important is the topic ___ for you personally? (1 = unimportant, 5 = very important)

  8. 8.

    Do the texts match your own personal opinion or do they partly contradict it?

    (If yes) In what way?

    (If it is not clear whether the visitor is talking about text A or text B, please ask politely!)

    Why do you believe the text’s information is incorrect regarding this point?

  9. 9.

    (If the visitor has not already spontaneously commented on the contradiction) What relationship do you think there is between the texts?

    (If the question is clearly too general for the visitor, ask) In your opinion, do the texts complement each other or contradict each other? (Then ask) In what way?

  10. 10.

    From your point of view, could both sides be right? (If relevant, ask) In what way?

  11. 11.

    How well informed were you about the topic ___ before coming to the exhibition? (1 = not at all, hardly, somewhat, quite well, 5 = very well)

  12. 12.

    How high is your interest in finding out more about the topic ___? (1 = not at all, hardly, somewhat, quite high, 5 = very high)

    I now have a couple of brief questions. You can either answer them alone or we can go through them together. What would you prefer?

    (If alone: give him/her questionnaire)

    (If together: go through the questionnaire orally with the visitor)

    At the end/after the visitor has filled in the questionnaire and handed it back: thank him/her and give him/her small thank-you gift!

Appendix B

Sample text about nano-silver

Nano-silver—a remedy against infections

Many bacteria can no longer be combated with antibiotics. In hospitals in the USA, multi-drug-resistant pathogens cause 1.7 million infections a year, resulting in the deaths of 100,000 patients. Nano-silver can help to prevent infections caused by pathogens of this kind in the future.

What is nano-silver, and how does it function? Nano-silver consists of nano-sized silver particles, whose surface is very big in comparison to their volume. For this reason, nano-silver dispenses many more silver ions than bigger silver particles. Nano-silver can penetrate bacteria and continue to dispense silver ions from there, which ultimately renders the bacteria harmless.

The use of bandages containing nano-silver and painting hospital walls with paints containing nano-silver minimizes infections. The use of nano-silver is therefore a promising way of combating infections.

Nano-silver reduces the effects of antibiotics

Nano-silver promotes the development of bacteria that cannot be combated with antibiotics. Bacteria can protect themselves against antibiotics and against silver ions. For this purpose, they have a sort of “dirt pump” integrated in their cell wall or cell membrane, which expels the damaging substances that have entered the cell.

The genetic code for these “dirt pumps” is often lost by bacteria. When bacteria are constantly exposed to nano-silver, it promotes the survival of the type of bacteria that permanently carry the genetic code of the “dirt pumps.” Nano-silver therefore contributes towards breeding bacteria that are resistant to both nano-silver and antibiotics.

A resistance to nano-silver or antibiotics can be reached very quickly in a laboratory. This is why the use of nano-silver reduces the effectiveness of antibiotics in combating infections.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grüninger, R., Specht, I., Lewalter, D. et al. Fragile knowledge and conflicting evidence: what effects do contiguity and personal characteristics of museum visitors have on their processing depth?. Eur J Psychol Educ 29, 215–238 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0195-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-013-0195-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation