Reducing reliance on inaccurate information

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 11-26

  Rapp, David N ^a   Hinze, Scott R ^a   Kohlhepp, Kristine ^a   Ryskin, Rachel A ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Learning; Memory; Persuasion; Prior knowledge; Reading comprehension; Text processing

Indexed keywords

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; DECEPTION; DECISION MAKING; EPISODIC MEMORY; HUMAN; READING; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; COMPREHENSION; DECEPTION; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MEMORY, EPISODIC; READING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893589446     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: 15325946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-013-0339-0     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10, 113-134.
2. Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197-202.
3. Anderson, J. R. (1981). Effects of prior knowledge on memory for new information. Memory & Cognition, 9, 237-246. doi: 10. 3758/BF03196958.
4. Anderson, L. (2006). McGraw-Hill's proofreading handbook (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2007. 12. 005.
6. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes [Software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://CRAN. R-project. org/package-lme4.
7. Britton, B. K., & Black, J. B. (Eds.). (1985). Understanding expository text. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., Rapp, D. N., Ditman, T., & Taylor, H. A. (2012). Caffeine enhances real-world language processing: Evidence from a proofreading task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 18, 95-108.
9. Butler, A. C., Zaromb, F., Lyle, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2009). Using popular films to enhance classroom learning: The good, the bad, and the interesting. Psychological Science, 20, 1161-1168.
10. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanation improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.
11. Diakidoy, I.-A., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning and Instruction, 11, 1-20.
12. Eslick, A. N., Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2011). Ironic effects of drawing attention to story errors. Memory, 19, 184-191.
13. Fazio, L. K., Barber, S. J., Rajaram, S., Ornstein, P. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Creating illusions of knowledge: Learning errors that contradict prior knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 142, 1-5.
14. Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2008a). Older, not younger, children learn more from false facts from stories. Cognition, 106, 1081-1089.
15. Fazio, L. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2008b). Slowing presentation speed increases illusions of knowledge. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 180-185. doi: 10. 3758/PBR. 15. 1. 180.
16. Gallo, D. A. (2010). False memories and fantastic beliefs: 15 years of the DRM illusion. Memory & Cognition, 38, 833-848. doi: 10. 3758/MC. 38. 7. 833.
17. Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
18. Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (1998). The readiness is all: The functionality of memory-based text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 67-86. doi: 10. 1080/01638539809545039.
19. Gerrig, R. J., & McKoon, G. (2001). Memory processes and experiential continuity. Psychological Science, 12, 81-85.
20. Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2, 336-340.
21. Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-613.
22. Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can't not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 221-233.
23. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 101. 3. 371.
24. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
25. Green, M. C., & Dill, K. E. (2013). Engaging with stories and characters: Learning, persuasion, and transportation into narrative worlds. In K. E. Dill (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 449-461). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
26. Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117-159.
27. Hinze, S. R., Wiley, J., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). The importance of constructive comprehension processes in learning from tests. Journal of Memory and Language.
28. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331, 772-775. doi: 10. 1126/science. 1199327.
30. Karpicke, J. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2007). Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 151-162. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2006. 09. 004.
31. Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors in reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365-383.
32. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33. Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 173-192.
34. Marsh, E. J. (2004). Story stimuli for creating false beliefs about the world. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 650-655. doi: 10. 3758/BF03206546.
35. Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140-1149. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193260.
36. Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2007). Learning from fictional sources. In J. Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of Henry L. Roediger III (pp. 397-413). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37. Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L. (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 519-536.
38. McNamara, D. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38, 1-30.
39. Myers, J. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131-157. doi: 10. 1080/01638539809545042.
40. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 338-368. doi: 10. 1016/S0022-5371(80)90266-2.
41. O'Brien, E. J. (1995). Automatic components of discourse comprehension. In R. F. Lorch & E. J. O'Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in reading (pp. 159-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Pearson, P. D., Hanson, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9, 201-209.
43. Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416-420.
44. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413-425. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2008. 02. 002.
45. Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36, 688-701.
46. Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., & Horton, W. S. (2013). Amazing stories: Acquiring and avoiding inaccurate information from fiction. Discourse Processes.
47. 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). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
48. Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276-279.
49. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59-108. doi: 10. 1037/0033-295X. 85. 2. 59.
50. Reder, L. M. (1979). The role of elaborations in memory for prose. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 221-234.
51. Reder, L. M. (1982). Plausibility judgments versus fact retrieval: Alternative strategies for sentence verification. Psychological Review, 89, 248-278.
52. Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes, 41, 221-250.
53. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, 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.
54. Rizzella, M. L., & O'Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 780-790.
55. Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574-591.
56. Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173-191.
57. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249-260. doi: 10. 1037/0022-0663. 90. 2. 249.
58. Storm, B. C. (2011). Retrieval-induced forgetting and the resolution of competition. In A. S. Benjamin (Ed.), Successful remembering and successful forgetting: A festschrift in honor of Robert A. Bjork (pp. 89-105). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
59. Umanath, S., Butler, A. C., & Marsh, E. J. (2012). Positive and negative effects of monitoring public films for historical inaccuracies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 556-567.
60. van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of scientific texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335-351. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1418.
61. van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299-316. doi: 10. 1207/s15326950dp3902&3_11.
62. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.
63. Wheeler, S. C., Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (1999). Fictional narratives change beliefs: Replications of Prentice, Gerrig, & Bailis (1997) with mixed corroboration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 136-141.
64. Wiswede, D., Koranyi, N., Müller, F., Langner, O., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Validating the truth of propositions: Behavioral and ERP indicators of truth evaluation processes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
65. Yerkovich, F. R., & Walker, C. H. (1986). Retrieval of scripted concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 627-644.
66. Zwaan, R. A., & Rapp, D. N. (2006). Discourse comprehension. In M. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 725-764). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.