Abstract
The current experiments systematically examined semantic content integration as a mechanism for explaining source inattention and forgetting when reading-to-remember multiple texts. For all 3 experiments, degree of semantic overlap was manipulated amongst messages provided by various information sources. In Experiment 1, readers’ source recognition was significantly poorer when the sources presented semantically-congruent compared to semantically-distinct messages. Experiment 2 replicated the findings, despite half of the participants receiving a pre-reading warning. Experiment 3 extended the examination to include longer argument-based texts; readers additionally wrote a comprehensive essay on the topic. The results indicated longer reading times and better recall memory for the claims and evidence statements from semantically-congruent compared to semantically-distinct texts, while still reproducing the poorer source recognition effects of Experiments 1 and 2. We discuss implications for contemporary accounts of multiple text comprehension as well as directions for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One could argue that the source memory differences across the two conditions reflected a benefit for the distinct condition and not a detriment for the congruent condition. That is, it may have been easier to correctly identify sources in the distinct condition based on the relevance of the source to the claim. It is important to note that for the two sentences in which we manipulated the congruency, we ensured they were equally likely to be pertinent to either context (e.g., a news anchor is equally likely to state that social media websites provide a way for musical groups to gain access to a new fan base vs. support groups to gain access to new attendees). To further address the source relevance concern, however, we conducted additional analyses investigating whether there were inter-condition differences across the two sentences in which we held constant the pertinence of the source to the information. The results were consistent with those obtained in the primary analyses. Participants recalled significantly fewer sources accurately when claims agreed (M = 2.56, SD = 1.75) than when distinct claims were offered (M = 4.27, SD = 2.21), regardless of the nature of the sentence administration, F(1, 53) = 46.55, p < .001, η 2p = .47. Thus, these results suggest that pertinence of the source was not driving the effects reported in the focal analyses.
We conducted comparable analyses for the Experiment 2 data to address the pertinence concern raised in Footnote 1. The results were again consistent with those obtained in the primary analyses and, as such, suggest that pertinence of the source was not driving the reported effects.
We conducted comparable analyses for the Experiment 3 data to address the pertinence concern raised in Footnote 1. The results were again consistent with those obtained in the primary analyses and, as such, suggest that pertinence of the source was not driving the reported effects.
References
Alexander, P. A. (2012). Reading into the future: Competence for the 21st century. Educational Psychologist, 47, 259–280.
Anderson, J. R. (1974). Retrieval of propositional information from long-term memory. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 451–474.
Anmarkrud, Ø., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Multiple-documents literacy: Strategic processing, source awareness, and argumentation when reading multiple conflicting documents. Learning and Individual Differences, 30, 64–76.
Barzilai, S., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A year classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 385–414.
Bixter, M. T., & Daniel, F. (2013). Working memory differences in illusory recollection of critical lures. Memory & Cognition, 41, 716–725.
Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Strømsø, H. I., Anmarkrud, Ø., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Promoting secondary school students’ evaluation of source features of multiple documents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 47, 447–479.
Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers’ use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40, 450–465.
Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2015). Who said what? Investigating the plausibility-induced source focusing assumption with Norwegian undergraduate readers (manuscript submitted for publication).
Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522.
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: Erlbaum.
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: Cambridge University Press.
Britt, M. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Braasch, J. L. G. (2013). Documents experienced as entities: Extending the situation model theory of comprehension. In M. A. Britt, S. R. Goldman, & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), Reading from words to multiple texts (pp. 160–179). New York: Routledge.
Climate change: Basic information. (2015, February, 18). Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the Internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 214–257.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Tang, D. T. W. (2010). Explicit warnings reduce but do not eliminate the continued influence of misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 38, 1087–1100.
Gallo, D. A., Roberts, M. J., & Seamon, J. G. (1997). Remembering words not presented in lists: Can we avoid creating false memories? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 271–276.
Gerrig, R. J., & O’Brien, E. J. (2005). The scope of memory-based processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 225–242.
Global Warming. (2015, February 18). Retrieved from http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming.
Goldman, S. R. (2004). Cognitive aspects of constructing meaning through and across multiple texts. In N. Shuart-Faris & D. Bloome (Eds.), Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research (pp. 317–352). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Goldman, S. R., Braasch, J. L. G., 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.
Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1990). Flexibility in text processing: A strategy competition model. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 181–219.
Goldman, S. R., Varma, S., & Coté, N. (1996). Extending capacity-constrained construction integration: Toward “smarter” and flexible models of text comprehension. In B. K. Britton & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Models of understanding text (pp. 73–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3–28.
Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). The knowledge revision components (KReC) framework: Processes and mechanisms. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 353–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). Interactions between prior knowledge and text structure during comprehension of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.
Kendeou, P., Muis, K. R., & Fulton, S. (2011). Reader and text factors on reading comprehension processes. Journal of Research in Reading, 34, 365–383.
Kim, H.-J. J., & Millis, K. (2006). The influence of sourcing and relatedness on event integration. Discourse Processes, 41, 51–65.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.
Kurby, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Magliano, J. P. (2005). The role of top-down and bottom-up processes in between-text integration. Reading Psychology, 26, 335–362.
Langer, J. A. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468–481.
Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140–1149.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 78–93.
Myers, J. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131–157.
O’Brien, E. J., & Myers, J. L. (1999). Text comprehension: A view from the bottom up. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 35–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Towards 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: Erlbaum.
Peshkam, A., Mensink, M. C., Putnam, A. L., Rapp, D. N. (2011). Warning readers to avoid irrelevant information: When being vague might be valuable. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 219–231.
Rapp, D. N. (2008). How do readers handle incorrect information during reading? Memory & Cognition, 36, 688–701.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.
Rouet, J.-F. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to Web-based learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
Rouet, J.-F., Le Bigot, L., de Pereyra, G., & Britt, M. A. (2016). Whose story is this? Discrepancy triggers readers’ attention to source information in news reports. Reading & Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9625-0.
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers’ reliance on source credibility in the service of inference generation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 230–247.
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.
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.
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.
Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203.
van den Broek, P., & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335–351.
Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52, 234–246.
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.
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.
Wineburg, S. S. (1994). The cognitive representation of historical texts. In J. Castellan, D. B. Pisoni, & G. Potts (Eds.), Teaching and learning in history (pp. 85–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wolfe, M. B. W., & Goldman, S. R. (2005). Relations between adolescents’ text processing and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 467–502.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Rachel Ankney, Guadalupe Castro, Daisy Favela and Tori Hill for their help in conducting experimental sessions or in coding the essay responses.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Braasch, J.L.G., McCabe, R.M. & Daniel, F. Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources. Read Writ 29, 1571–1598 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9609-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9609-5