Conflicting but close: Readers’ integration of information sources as a function of their disagreement

Abstract

According to the documents model framework (Britt,

Readers’ Selective Recall of Source Features as a Function of Claim Discrepancy and Task Demands

“…First, and in line with prior studies (Braasch et al, 2012;Rouet et al, 2016), we observed that the presence of discrepant statements enhanced memory for the identity of the source, as reflected in the significant effect of the consistency of the statements on memory for the sources' identity. This first part of the results is a replication of the D-ISC effect on memory for who says what (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Braasch et al, 2012;Kammerer et al, 2016;Rouet et al, 2016;Saux et al, 2017).…”

“…The selection of the critical texts for the second experiment was done randomly. Second, because the second experiment was in a language different than the first, texts were translated, adapted to the local context, and pretested (Saux et al 2017). Third, because the texts would introduce two features per source (instead of one), we cont rolled for a potential primacy memory effect during recall by counterbalancing the order of the features across texts in the following way: four text presentation versions were assembled.…”

“…Unlike Experiment 1 we did not include the two questions at the end of each text. To promote attentive reading, we asked participants to think of and write down an alternative title for each story when finishing with each text, which has been used in previous comprehension research (e.g., Saux et al, 2017).…”

“…The report states that according to a policeman, the fire was caused by a spontaneous short of the electric circuit with no involvement of human action, whereas according to a journalist, the same fire was caused by someone intentionally damaging the system. When two such incompatible or conflicting accounts of the same situation are available to the reader, attention to, memory for, and use of sources has been found to increase significantly, as compared with compatible or consistent versions (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012;Kammerer, Kalbfell, & Gerjets, 2016;Rouet, LeBigot, De Pereyra, & Britt, 2016;Salmerón, Macedo-Rouet, & Rouet, 2016;Saux et al, 2017;Stang Lund, Bråten, Brante, & Strømsø, 2017).…”

“…Prior research has examined memory for discrepant or conflicting sources both directly and indirectly. Direct measures include recognition (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Stang Lund, Bråten, Brante, & Strømsø 2017.;Saux, Britt, Burin, Irrazabal, & Rouet, 2016;Stadtler, Paul, Globoschütz, & Bromme, 2015;Strømsø, Bråten, & Britt, 2010: Thomm & Bromme, 2016 and cued recall (e.g., Braasch et al, 2012;Rouet et al, 2016;Saux et al, 2017;Steffens, Britt, Braasch, Strømsø, & Bråten 2014). Indirect measures of source memory typically involve analyzing the number of times participants mention information of the sources when producing written summaries or arguments about what they read (e.g., Kammerer et al, 2016;Stadtler, Scharrer, Skodzik, & Bromme, 2014;.…”