This study compared the nature of text comprehension as measured by multiple-choice format and open-ended format questions. Participants read a short text while explaining preselected sentences. After reading the text, participants answered open-ended and multiple-choice versions of the same questions based on their memory of the text content. The results indicated that performance on open-ended questions was correlated with the quality of self-explanations, but performance on multiple-choice questions was correlated with the level of prior knowledge related to the text. These results suggest that open-ended and multiple-choice format questions measure different aspects of comprehension processes. The results are discussed in terms of dual process theories of text comprehension.

No abstract

Readers rapidly check new information against prior knowledge during validation, but research is inconsistent as to whether source credibility affects validation. We argue that readers are likely to accept highly plausible assertions regardless of source, but that high source credibility may boost acceptance of claims that are less plausible based on general world knowledge. In Experiment 1, participants read narratives with assertions for which the plausibility varied depending on the source. For high credibility sources, we found that readers were faster to read information confirming these assertions relative to contradictory information. We found the opposite patterns for low credibility characters. In Experiment 2, readers read claims from the same high or low credibility sources, but the claims were always plausible based on general world knowledge. Readers consistently took longer to read contradictory information, regardless of source. In Experiment 3, participants read modified versions of "The Tell-Tale Heart," which was narrated entirely by an unreliable source. We manipulated the plausibility of a target event, as well as whether high credibility characters within the story provided confirmatory or contradictory information about the narrator's description of the target event. Though readers rated the narrator as being insane, they were more likely to believe the narrator's assertions about the target event when it was plausible and corroborated by other characters. We argue that sourcing research would benefit from focusing on the relationship between source credibility, message credibility, and multiple sources within a text.

No abstract

No abstract