Memory for Scientific Arguments and Their Sources: Claim–Evidence Consistency Matters

Abstract

We investigated whether memory for scientific arguments and their sources were affected by the appropriateness of the claim -evidence relationship. Undergraduates read health articles in one of four conditions derived by crossing claim type (causal with definite qualifier, associative with tentative qualifier) and evidence type (experimental, correlational). This manipulation produced articles that overstated the results of a study and articles that understated their results, along with appropriate controls for each. We found that evidence and, to a lesser extent, source information was recalled more poorly for articles that overstated results (i.e., causal claims using correlational evidence) than for those where evidence was appropriate (i.e., causal claim with experimental evidence). Readers rejected these overstatements based on the study design rather than reprocessing the text. In contrast, understatements (tentative claim, experimental evidence) were recalled just as well as their appropriate control; however, the target content was reprocessed at a higher rate. These findings suggest that readers may remember an inappropriate definite conclusion but fail to recall the evidence used to support it.

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

“…This finding does not support for the hyperconnected representation hypothesis. This limited sourcing tagging is consistent with other studies indicating that task (e.g., Keck et al, 2015;Steffens, Britt, Braasch, Strømsø, & Bråten, 2014) and individual differences (e.g., Barzilai & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Kammerer et al, 2013;von der Mühlen, Richter, Schmid, Schmidt, & Berthold, 2016) play a role in the amount and quality of source tagging. The only hypothesis supported by these recall findings is the DMF.…”

Sourcing in the reading process: introduction to the special issue

“…In many situations, adolescent and adult readers fail to notice source information, and when they do notice sources, they often do not consider them for evaluating the content (e.g., Barzilai, Tzadok, & Eshet-Alkalai, 2015;Britt & Aglinskas, 2002;Eysenbach & Köhler, 2002;Kobayashi, 2014;Stadtler & Bromme, 2007, 2008Steffens, Britt, Braasch, Strømsø, & Bråten, 2014;Strømsø, Bråten, Britt, & Ferguson, 2013;Wineburg, 1991;Wiley et al, 2009). These findings raise the question of why readers frequently omit sourcing activities.…”

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

“…investigated whether a contradiction between textual claims and the reader's prior beliefs enhanced memory for source features by examining memory of five different features (author name, author's credentials, publication, type of publication, and date of publication). Similar to Steffens et al (2014), Bråten et al found a remarkably low performance on memory for source features, with an average of less than one of the features mentioned by the participants (although a memory benefit for the contradicting condition was still identified). Likewise, Kammerer et al (2016) asked their participants to read two contradicting or consistent webpages that presented an "About us" section of 60 words in length.…”

“…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;.…”

“…To a lesser extent, some have also examined the ability to recall multiple features of the sources. Steffens, Britt, Braasch, Strømsø, and Bråten (2014), for example, asked undergraduate students to read health articles that presented five source features after the title (name, occupation, affiliation, magazine, year) and then assessed their cued recall of each of these elements of information. The recall rate was fairly low (approximately one attribute when averaging across conditions).…”