Reading and Writing

, Volume 29, Issue 8, pp 1629–1652 | Cite as

How source information shapes lay interpretations of science conflicts: interplay between sourcing, conflict explanation, source evaluation, and claim evaluation

  • Eva ThommEmail author
  • Rainer Bromme


When laypeople read controversial scientific information in order to make a personally relevant decision, information on the source is a valuable resource with which to evaluate multiple, competing claims. Due to their bounded understanding, laypeople rely on the expertise of others and need to identify whether sources are credible. The present study examined under which conditions readers acknowledge and consider available source information. University students read two conflicting scientific claims put forward by sources whose credibility was varied in terms of either expertise or benevolence. They then rated their subjective explanations for the conflicting claims, perceived source credibility, and personal claim agreement. Results showed that when evaluating and explaining the conflict, participants became vigilant to source information specifically when source credibility was questioned. Conflict explanation through differences in sources’ competencies mediated the impact of sourcing on source credibility. Information about a source’s benevolence revealed a strong direct effect on credibility judgments. However, motivation explanations did not clarify the relationship. Overall, findings show that readers consider source information and apply it adaptively when handling conflicting scientific information.


Sourcing Conflict explanation Scientific conflicts Conflict evaluation 



This research was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Grant BR 1126/6-2. We would like to thank Fritz Klinkemeyer and Teresa Bartsch for their support in data gathering, and Jonathan Harrow for advice in language editing.

Supplementary material

11145_2016_9638_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)


  1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barzilai, S., Tzadok, E., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). Sourcing while reading divergent expert accounts: Pathways from views of knowing to written argumentation. Instructional Science, 43(6), 737–766. doi: 10.1007/s11251-015-9359-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besely, J. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In National Science Board (Ed.), Science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 1–53). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).Google Scholar
  5. Braasch, J. L., Rouet, J. F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450–465. doi: 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21, 175–179. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Britt, M. A. (2009). Trust matters: Examining the role of source evaluation in students’ construction of meaning within and across multiple texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(1), 6–28. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.44.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., & Salmerón, L. (2011). Trust and mistrust when students read multiple information sources about climate change. Learning and Instruction, 21, 180–192. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J.-F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In J. R. Kirby & M. J. Lawson (Eds.), Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. doi: 10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163–193). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511691904.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40, 241–252. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 5(1), 68–91. doi: 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buehl, M. M., & Alexander, P. A. (2006). Examining the dual nature of epistemological beliefs. International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 28–42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Castell, S., Charlton, A., Clemence, M., Pettigrew, N., Pope, S., Quigley, A., et al. (2014). Public attitudes to science 2014. London: Ipsos Mori. Retrieved from
  17. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  18. Critchley, C. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043–1056. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319–342. doi: 10.1177/1461444807075015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fox, S. (2005). Health information online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  23. Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L., Wiley, J., Graesser, A. C., & Brodowinska, K. (2012). Comprehending and learning from Internet sources: Processing patterns of better and poorer learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 356–381. doi: 10.1002/RRQ.027.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, S. R., & Scardamalia, M. (2013). Managing, understanding, applying, and creating knowledge in the information age: Next-generation challenges and opportunities. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 255–269. doi: 10.1080/10824669.2013.773217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470. doi: 10.1111/bmsp.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE, 10(10), e0139309 EP. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635. doi: 10.1086/266350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kajanne, A., & Pirttilä-Backman, A. M. (1999). Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 303–315. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/8/4/303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(3), 1193–1203. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kammerer, Y., & Gerjets, P. (2012). Effects of search interface and internet-specific epistemic beliefs on source evaluations during web search for medical information: An eye-tracking study. Behaviour & Information Technology, 31(1), 83–97. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2011.599040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keil, F. C. (2012). Running on empty? How folk science gets by with less. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 329–334. doi: 10.1177/0963721412453721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kobayashi, K. (2014). Students’ consideration of source information during the reading of multiple texts and its effect on intertextual conflict resolution. Instructional Science, 42(2), 183–205. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9276-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuhn, D., Cheney, R., & Weinstock, M. (2000). The development of epistemological understanding. Cognitive development, 15, 309–328. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00030-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Limón, M. (2006). The domain generality–specificity of epistemological beliefs: A theoretical problem, a methodological problem or both? International Journal of Educational Research, 45, 7–27. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2006.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734. doi: 10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335.Google Scholar
  41. Metzger, M. J., & Flanagin, A. J. (2013). Credibility and trust of information in online environments: The use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 210–220. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In H. van Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99–122). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  44. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In M. T. McCrudden, J. P. Magliano, & G. Schraw (Eds.), Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361–387. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 231–243. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shafto, P., Eaves, B., Navarro, D. J., & Perfors, A. (2012). Epistemic trust: Modeling children’s reasoning about others’ knowledge and intent. Development Science, 15(3), 436–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01135.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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. doi: 10.1037/a0021331.Google Scholar
  50. Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., & Origgi, G. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language, 25, 359–393. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 176–203. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tabak, I. (2015). Functional scientific literacy: Seeing the science within the words and across the web. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 269–280). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96(2), 197–2011. doi: 10.1002/sce.20480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomm, E., Hentschke, J., & Bromme, R. (2015). The explaining conflicting scientific claims (ECSC) Questionnaire: Measuring Laypersons’ explanations for conflicts in science. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 139–152. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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(4), 1060–1106. doi: 10.3102/0002831209333183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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(1), 73–87. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWestfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations