Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts

Abstract

The knowledge revision components framework (KReC) outlines the basic comprehension processes and text factors that can be accentuated to increase the potential for knowledge revision during reading. The goal of the present study was to explore source credibility as one such text factor. In Experiment 1, we established the utility of a set of refutation texts in influencing knowledge revision. Participants read ten refutation and ten control texts. The participants had faster reading times and higher posttest scores for the refutation than for the control texts, providing evidence for knowledge revision. In Experiment 2, we examined the influence of source credibility under normal reading conditions. Participants read 20 refutation texts, ten with high-credibility and ten with lowcredibility sources. The reading times and posttest scores suggested that knowledge revision unfolded successfully, independent of credibility. Using the same texts, in Experiment 3 we examined the influence of direct instructions that made the credibility of the source of information more salient. When the credibility of the source was made salient, the revision process was disrupted in the low-credibility condition, as evidenced by slower reading times and lower posttest scores than in the high-credibility condition. The results add to our understanding of the factors that constrain knowledge revision during the reading of refutation texts, and are discussed in the context of the extant literature and KReC.

How laypersons consider differences in sources’ trustworthiness and expertise in their regulation and resolution of scientific conflicts

“…Given that this resembles the information environment of our study with two conflicting positions, providing additional source information for both positions can be expected to further increase agreement with the correct information and therefore respective knowledge revision. A first study regarding the role of source information in refutation texts already showed that source information can have an effect on successful knowledge revision (Van Boekel et al, 2017). In that study, however, only the source credibility (i.e.…”

The Effects of Positive and Negative Emotions on Knowledge Revision

“…Across three experiments, we sought to determine the effects of embedding positive and negative emotional content in refutation texts and whether such texts could successfully revise misconceptions about vaccines. The current design and procedure were similar to previous studies Van Boekel et al, 2017) wherein participants were asked to read a series of short stories that followed a narrative-informational format (Duke, 2000). The standard refutation texts included a brief introduction of a scene and two protagonists, an elaboration section that stated and refuted a targeted misconception about vaccines and explained the correct understanding conveyed via character dialogue, a filler section that continued the storyline, a correct-outcome sentence that stated the correct belief, a spillover sentence, and a section that concluded the story.…”

“…Misconceptions about controversial and non-controversial topics are alike in that they both deviate in substantive ways from the normative and best available evidence. At minimum, both require credible and plausible corrections to be revised (Kendeou & van den Broek, 2005;Lombardi, Bickel, Bailey, & Burrell, 2018;Rich, Van Loon, Dunlosky, & Zaragoza, 2017;Van Boekel, Lassonde, O'Brien, & Kendeou, 2017). However, controversial topics are distinguished by the involvement of multiple stakeholders whose incentives, ideas, and prior commitments are in conflict about how to resolve high-stakes issues (Johnson, 2015).…”

How Can Psychological Science Help Counter the Spread of Fake News?

“…For debunking, organizational sources seem more effective than individuals (van der Meer & Jin, 2020; Vraga & Bode, 2017) but only when information recipients actively assess source credibility (van Boekel et al, 2017). Indeed, source credibility may matter little when individuals do not pay attention to the source (Albarracín et al, 2017;Sparks & Rapp, 2011), and despite highly credible sources the continued influence of misinformation may persist (Ecker & Antonio, 2020).…”