Scientific Literacy: The Role of Goal-Directed Reading and Evaluation in Understanding Scientific Information

Educational Psychologist

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 104-122

  Britt, M Anne ^a   Richter, Tobias ^b   Rouet, Jean François ^c,d  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

^c National Centre of Scientific Research   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE POITIERS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902688645     PISSN: 00461520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.916217     Document Type: Article

References (116)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Allen, E. S., Burke, J. M., Welch, M. E., & Rieseberg, L. H. (1999). Reliability of science on the web. Nature, 402, 722. doi:10.1038/45370
3. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Wittrock, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy of learning for teaching: A revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY: Longman.
4. Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 11, 363-374. doi:10.1080/10862967909547342
5. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41-56. doi:10.1007/BF00127118
6. Blankenship, K.L., & Holtgraves, T. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3-24. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273034
7. Bloebaum, B., & Noelleke, D. (2011, February). Journalism and scientific evidence. Paper presented at the Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science Conference, New York City, NY.
8. Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students' evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 180-195. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.03.003
9. Braasch, J. L., Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Manning, F. H., Gomez, K. W., & MacLeod, S. M. (2009). Evaluating search results: An empirical analysis of middle school students' use of source attributes to select useful sources. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 41, 63-82. doi:10.2190/EC.41.1.c
10. Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450-465. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6
11. Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Towards an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48-70. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647
12. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2010). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1-31. doi:10.1080/01638530902959646
13. Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluation of scientific arguments. Discourse Processes, 32, 191-213. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3202&3_06
14. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving student's ability to use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485-522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
15. Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2002). Implications of document-level literacy skills for web-site design. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 170-176. doi:10.3758/BF03195439
16. Britt, M. A., Kurby, C. A., Dandotkar, S., & Wolfe, C. R. (2008). I agreed with what? Memory for simple argument claims. Discourse Processes, 45, 52-84. doi:10.1080/01638530701739207
17. Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749-810. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00002-0
18. 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.
19. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In M. J. Lawson & J. R. Kirby (Eds.), The quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and mental structures (pp. 276-314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J. F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2012). Documents as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 160-179). New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., Perfetti, C. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1994). Learning from history texts: from causal analysis to argument models. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck, & K. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 47-84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Brossard, D., & Shanahan, J. (2006). Do they know what they read? Building a scientific literacy measurement instrument based on science media coverage. Science Communication, 28, 47-63. doi:10.1177/1075547006291345
23. Chambliss, M. J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778-807. doi:10.2307/748198
24. Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161-238), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 161-199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1
26. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49. doi:10.3102/00346543063001001
27. Chinn, C. A., Buckland, L. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2011). Expanding the dimensions of epistemic cognition: Arguments from philosophy and psychology. Educational Psychologist, 46, 141-167. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587722
28. Chung, M., Oden, R.P., Joyner, B.L., Sims, A., & Moon, R.Y. (2012). Safe infant sleep recommendations on the Internet: Let's Google it. The Journal of Pediatrics, 161, 1080-1084. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2012.06.004
29. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). The common core standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies and science and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association for Best Practices. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
30. Durik, A. M., Britt, M. A., Reynolds, R., & Storey, J. K. (2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 217-234. doi:10.1177/0261927X08317947
31. Fang, Z. (2008). Going beyond the fab five: Helping students cope with the unique linguistic challenges of expository reading in intermediate grades. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 476-487. doi:10.1598/JAAL.51.6.4
32. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168-185. doi:10.1002/sce.20414
33. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A. L. (1983). Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Glenberg, A. M., & Epstein, W. (1985). Calibration of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 702-718. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.11.1-4.702
35. Goldman, S., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356-381. doi:10.1002/RRQ.027
36. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K. A., Gomez, K. W., Braasch, J. L., Macleod, S., & Manning, F. (2011). Literacy in the digital world: Comprehending and learning from multiple sources. In M. McKeown & L. Kucan (Eds.), Bringing reading research to life (pp. 257-284). New York, NY: Guilford.
37. Goldman, S. R., Lawless, K., & Manning, F. (2012). Research and development of multiple source comprehension assessment. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading: From words to multiple texts (pp. 180-199). New York, NY: Routledge.
38. Graesser, A. C., & Franklin, S. P. (1990). QUEST: A cognitive model of question answering. Discourse Processes, 13, 279-303. doi:10.1080/01638539009544760
39. 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
40. Hagoort, P., Hald, L. A., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438-441. doi:10.1126/science.1095455
41. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. In C. G. Hempel (Eds.), Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science (pp. 331-496). New York, NY: Free Press.
42. Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15, 135-175. doi:10.1086/286983
43. Horn, K. (2001). The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles. BioScience, 51, 1086-1093. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[1086:TCOCHS]2.0.CO;2
44. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamin.
45. Isberner, M.-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15-22. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003
46. Isberner, M-B., & Richter, T. (2014). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes, 51, 7-25. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855867
47. Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists' and journalists' credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347-369.
48. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of continued influence effect: When misinformation in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420-1436.
49. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
51. Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.85.5.363
52. Knudson, R. E. (1994). An analysis of persuasive discourse: Learning how to take a stand. Discourse Processes, 18, 211-230. doi:10.1080/01638539409544892
53. Kopp, K. (2013). Selecting and using information from multiple documents for argumentation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
54. Kopp, K., Britt, M. A., Millis, K., & Graesser, A. (2012). Improving the efficiency of dialogue in tutoring. Learning and Instruction, 22, 320-330. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.12.002
55. Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2003). The development of argument skills. Child Development, 74, 1245-1260. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00605
56. Larson, A. A., Britt, M. A., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339-365. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.4.339-366
57. Larson, M., Britt, M. A., & Larson, A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205-224. doi:10.1080/02702710490489908
58. Lea, R. B., Mulligan, E. J., & Walton, J. (2005). Accessing distant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 28, 303-317.
59. Lee, C. D., & Spratley, A. (2010). Reading in the disciplines: The challenges of adolescent literacy. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
60. Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778.
61. Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 301-311.
62. Macedo-Rouet, M., Braasch, J. L., Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2013). Teaching fourth and fifth graders to evaluate information sources during text comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 204-226. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769995
63. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013a). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14-26. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000078
64. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013b). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151-175. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
65. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Training multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 54-71.
66. Maier, M., Rothmund, T., Retzbach, A., Otto, L., & Besley, J. C. (this issue). Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist, 49.
67. Mayer, R. E., Dyck, J. L., & Cook, L. K. (1984). Techniques that help readers build mental models from scientific text: Definitions pretraining and signalling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1089-1105. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.76.6.1089
68. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113-139. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9010-7
69. McCrudden, M. T., Schraw, G., Lehman, S., & Poliquin, A. (2007). The effect of causal diagrams on text learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 367-388. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2005.11.002
70. Meyer, B. J. F. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland.
71. Millis, K. K., Graesser, A. C., & Haberlandt, K. (1993). The impact of connectives on the memory for expository texts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 317-339. doi:10.1002/acp.2350070406
72. Millis, K. K., Morgan, D., & Graesser, A. C. (1990). The influence of knowledge-based inferences on the reading time of expository text. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 25, 197-212. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60256-X
73. Noordman, L. G. M., Vonk, W., & Kempff, H. J. (1992). Causal inferences during the reading of expository texts. Journal of Memory and Language, 13, 573-590. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90029-W
74. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240. doi:10.1002/sce.10066
75. Nussbaum, E. M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory, and probability modeling: Alternative frameworks for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychologist, 46, 84-106. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.558816
76. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effect of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157-169. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.157
77. O'Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35-53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. OECD. (2011). PISA 2009 results: Students on line: Digital technologies and performance (Vol. VI). Paris, France: OECD. doi:10.1787/9789264112995-en
79. Osborne, J. F., & Patterson, A. (2011). Scientific argument and explanation: A necessary distinction? Science Education, 95, 627-638. doi:10.1002/sce.20438
80. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x
81. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards 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.
82. Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 562-571. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.77.5.562
83. Platt, J. R. (1964). Science, strong inference-Proper scientific method. Science Magazine, 146, 347-353. doi:10.1126/science.146.3642.347
84. 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 flexiblity (pp. 125-140). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
85. 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. doi:10.1037/a0014038
86. Ross, L., 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.
87. Rottenberg, A. (1988). Elements of argument: A text and reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin's.
88. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
89. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M.T. McCrudden, J.P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Relevance Instructions and Goal-focusing in Text Learning (pp 19-52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
90. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Caroux, L., Nivet, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2009, August). When do readers construct document models? The role of source information and story consistency. Paper presented at the biennial meeting for the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
91. Rouet, J.-F., & Coutelet, B. (2008). The acquisition of document search strategies in grade school students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 389-406. doi:10.1002/acp.1415
92. Rouet, J.-F., Favart, M., Britt, M. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1997). Studying and using multiple documents in history: Effects of discipline expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 85-106.
93. Sandoval, W. A., Sodian, B., Koerber, S., & Wong, J. (this issue). Developing children's early competencies to engage with science. Educational Psychologist, 49.
94. 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.
95. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter? Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7-18. doi:10.1097/TLD.0b013e318244557a
96. Shaw, F. W. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51-80. doi:10.1080/135467896394564
97. Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (this issue). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49.
98. Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361-366. doi:10.1177/0963721413495236
99. Singer, M., & Gagnon, N. (1999). Detecting causal inconsistencies in scientific text. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 179-194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
100. Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 507-524. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(92)90026-T
101. Singer, M., Harkness, D., & Stewart, S. T. (1997). Constructing inferences in expository text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 24, 199-228. doi:10.1080/01638539709545013
102. Snow, C., & the RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward a R&D program for reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
103. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25, 359-393.
104. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191-210. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3
105. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
106. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (in press). The content-source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
107. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342-357. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.89.2.342
108. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176-203. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
109. Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Associations between myside bias on an informal reasoning task and amount of post-secondary education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 851-860. doi:10.1002/acp.915
110. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
111. Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J., & Silfes, L. N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165-181. doi:10.1007/BF00710663
112. Wiley, J., Goldman, S., Graesser, A., Sanchez, C., Ash, I., & Hemmerich, J. (2009) Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106. doi:10.3102/0002831209333183
113. Wiley, J., & Myers, J. L. (2003). Availability and accessibility of information and causal inferences from scientific text. Discourse Processes, 36, 109-129. doi:10.1207/S15326950DP3602_2
114. Wineburg, S. S. (1991). Historical problem solving: a study of the cognitive processes used in the evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73-87.
115. Wolfe, C. R., & Britt, M. A. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking and Reasoning, 14, 1-27. doi:10.1080/13546780701527674
116. Wolfe, C. R., Britt, M. A., & Butler, J. A. (2009). Argumentation schema and the Myside Bias in written argumentation. Written Communication, 26, 183-209. doi:10.1177/0741088309333019