Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in short narratives
- 457 Downloads
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.
KeywordsText 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory and Cognition, 36, 479–494.Google Scholar
- Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Sharpe, D. (2015). Your Chi Square test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=8.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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