Reading and Writing

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1549–1570 | Cite as

Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives

  • Jean-François Rouet
  • Ludovic Le Bigot
  • Guillaume de Pereyra
  • M. Anne Britt


Three experiments investigated the role of source information (i.e., who said what) in readers’ comprehension of short informational texts. Based on the Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension assumption (Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012), we hypothesized that readers would be more likely to make use of source information when summarizing stories that included discrepant statements. Readers would also memorize source information more accurately. Experiments 1 and 2 found that American and French college students were more likely to refer to source information when they summarized news reports containing discrepant assertions. A detailed content analysis of the summaries also indicated that students use hedging and several other tactics to resolve contradictions. Experiment 3 replicated Braasch et al.’s finding that sources of discrepant stories were more likely to be recalled than sources of consistent stories. Experiment 3 also extended these findings using longer texts and a different reading task. Altogether the data support the Documents Model framework of multiple source comprehension.


Text comprehension Summary Coherence Discrepancy Source 



This research was supported in part through a grant from the “Agence Nationale pour la Recherche” [National Research Agency] (# ANR-12-CORD-0028) to the University of Poitiers and a grant from the United States Department of Education Cognition and Student Learning Research Program (# R305H020039), to Northern Illinois University. The research was also supported by a University of Poitiers “Invited researcher” grant to the Fourth author. We thank Loïc Caroux, Clément Nivet, and Elodie Phelippeau for their assistance with data collection.


  1. Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1061–1070.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, L., & Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 40, 450–465. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., Britt, M. A., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H., & Salmerón, L. (2010). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Pereyra, G., Britt, M. A., Braasch, J. L. G., & Rouet, J. F. (2014). Reader’s memory for information sources in simple news stories: Effects of text and task features. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 187–204. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.879152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Ferris & D. M. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 313–347). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Goldman, S. R., Saul, E. U., & Coté, N. (1995). Paragraphing, reader, and task effects on discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 273–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graesser, A. C., Bowers, C., Olde, B., & Pomeroy, V. (1999). Who said what? Source memory for narrator and character agents in literary short stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 284–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hakala, C. M., & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, H. M., & Seifert, C. M. (1999). Modifying mental representations: Comprehending corrections. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 303–318). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013). The role of Internet-specific epistemic beliefs in laypersons’ source evaluations and decisions during Web search on a medical issue. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1193–1203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keck, D., Kammerer, Y., & Starauschek, E. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts? Computers & Education, 82, 442–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, H. J. J., & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41, 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Long, D. L., & Spooner, A. (2010). Placing a text in context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorch, R. F, Jr, Lorch, E. P., Ritchey, K., McGovern, L., & Coleman, D. (2001). Effects of headings on text sumarization. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McCrudden, M. T., & Schraw, G. (2007). Relevance and goal-focusing in text processing. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 113–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A resonance text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.Google Scholar
  23. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 36, 479–494.Google Scholar
  25. Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2014). Learning from multiple documents. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 813–841). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rouet, J.-F., Britt, M. A., Mason, R. A., & Perfetti, C. A. (1996). Using multiple sources of evidence to reason about history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 478–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharpe, D. (2015). Your Chi Square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8).
  30. Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 230–247.Google Scholar
  31. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2014). 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 (pp. 379–402). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2011). How reading goals and rhetorical signals influence recipients’ recognition of intertextual conflicts. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1346–1351). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  33. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2002). Norwegian students’ use of multiple sources while reading expository texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 208–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2010). Reading multiple texts about climate change: The relationship between memory for sources and text comprehension. Learning and Instruction, 20, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sundar, S. S., & Nass, C. (2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02872.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van den Broek, P., Risden, K., & Husbye-Hartmann, E. (1995). The role of readers’ standards of coherence in the generation of inferences during reading. In R. F. Lorch Jr & E. J. O’Brien (Eds.), Sources of coherence in text comprehension (pp. 353–373). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. van den Broek, P., & Trabasso, T. (1986). Causal networks versus goal hierarchies in summarizing text. Discourse Processes, 9, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Oostendorp, H. (2002). Updating mental representations during reading scientific text. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 417–436). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  40. Wade-Stein, D., & Kintsch, E. (2004). Summary street: Interactive computer support for writing. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In G. Leinhardt, I. Beck, & C. Stainton (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Zwaan, R. A., Magliano, J. P., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386–397.Google Scholar
  45. Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jean-François Rouet
    • 1
  • Ludovic Le Bigot
    • 1
  • Guillaume de Pereyra
    • 1
  • M. Anne Britt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Centre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations