How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues the role of perceived plausibility and reading goals

Journal of Media Psychology

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 14-26

  Maier, Johanna ^a   Richter, Tobias ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Epistemic validation; Plausibility; Reading goal; Science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876255995     PISSN: 18641105     EISSN: 21512388     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000078     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Baker, L. (1985). Differences in the standards used by college students to evaluate their comprehension of expository prose. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 297-313.
2. Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring and the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 3-38.
3. Baron, J. (1995). Myside bias in thinking about abortion. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 221-235.
4. Barr, D. J. (2008). Analyzing 'visual world' eyetracking data using multilevel logistic regression. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 457-474.
5. Black, A., Freeman, P., & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1986). Plausibility and the comprehension of text. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 51-62.
6. Blanc, N., Kendeou, P., Van den Broek, P., & Brouillet, D. (2008). Updating situation models during reading of news reports: Evidence from empirical data and simulations. Discourse Processes, 45, 103-121. doi:10.1080/016385307 01792784
7. Bobko, P. (1986). A solution to some dilemmas when testing hypotheses about ordinal interactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 323-326.
8. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., & Britt, A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students' construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44, 6-28.
9. Britt, M. A., and 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.
10. Ferretti, T. R., Singer, M., & Patterson, C. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the time-course of verifying text ideas. Cognition, 108, 881-888. doi:10.1016/j.cognition. 2008.06.002
11. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer.
13. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
14. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Johnson-Laird, P. N., Girotto, V., & Legrenzi, P. (2004). Reasoning from inconsistency to consistency. Psychological Review, 111, 640-661. (Pubitemid 38883576)
16. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
17. Klieme, E., Artelt, C., Hartig, J., Jude, N., Kçller, O., Prenzel, M., ⋯ Stanat, P. (Eds.). (2010). PISA 2009: Bilanz nach einem Jahrzehnt [PISA 2009: Balance after one decade]. Miinster, Germany: Waxmann.
18. Lea, R. B. (1995). On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 18-26.
19. Lea, R. B., and Mulligan., E. J., & Walton, J. L. (2005). Accessing distant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 387-395. (Pubitemid 40816171)
20. Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Oberauer, K., & Morales, M. (2005). Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation. Psychological Science, 16, 190-195.
21. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (in press). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction.
23. McAllister, P. O., & Anderson, A. (1991). Conservatism and the comprehension of implausible text. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 147-164. doi:10.1002/ejsp. 2420210205
24. McCulloch, C. E., & Searle, S. R. (2001). Generalized, linear, and mixed models. New York: Wiley.
25. Metzger, M.J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2078-2091. (Pubitemid 350229710)
26. Metzger, M. J., and Flanagin., A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
27. Narvaez, D., Van den Broek, P., & Ruiz, A. B. (1999). The influence of reading purpose on inference generation and comprehension in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 488-496.
28. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many disguises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175-220. (Pubitemid 128549158)
29. O'Brien, E. J., Shank, D., Myers, J. L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Elaborative inferences during reading: Do they occur on-line? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 14, 410-420.
30. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: What students know and can do: Student performance in reading, mathematics and science (Vol. 1), Paris: OECD.
31. Oostendorp, H. van (2002). Updating mental representation during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. Leon, & A. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 309-332). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Oostendorp, H. van, Otero, J., & Campanario, J. M. (2001). Conditions of updating during reading. In M. Louwerse & W. van Peer (Eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 55-76). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
33. Perfetti, C. A., and Rouet., J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99-122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. Raudenbush, S. W., and Bryk., A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2009). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
36. Richter, T. (2003). Epistemologische Einschdtzungen beim Textverstehen [Epistemic validation in text comprehension]. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
37. Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes, 41, 221-250. (Pubitemid 43735005)
38. Richter, T. (2011). Cognitive flexibility and epistemic validation in learning from multiple texts. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility (pp. 125-140). Berlin: Springer.
39. Richter, T., & Naumann, J. (2002). Mehrebenenanalysen mit hierarchisch-linearen Modellen [Multilevel analysis with hierarchical linear models]. Zeitschrift fur Medienpsychologie, 14 (N.F. 2), 155-159.
40. Richter, T., & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47-65. doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9038-4
41. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wçhrmann, B. (2009). You don't have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538-558.
42. Ross, L., and Lepper., M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880-892.
43. Rouet, J. F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Schank, R. C, & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
45. Schmalhofer, F., & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer's manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279-294.
46. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237-259.
47. Singer, M. (1993). Causal bridging inferences: Validating consistent and inconsistent sequences. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 340-359.
48. Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574-591. (Pubitemid 43549011)
49. Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507-524.
50. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2011). How reading goals and rhetorical signals influence recipients' recognition of intertextual conflicts. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1346-1351). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
51. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
52. Westby, C. (2004). A language perspective on executive functioning, metacognition, and self-regulation in reading. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 398-427). New York: Guilford Press.
53. Wiley, J., & Voss, J. F. (1999). Constructing arguments from multiple sources: Tasks that promote understanding and not just memory for text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 301-311. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.2.301