Abstract
How do readers deal with information that is inconsistent with what they know? This question has typically been addressed by examining whether carefully designed texts can help readers revise inaccurate beliefs. However, texts sometimes present incorrect information that runs counter to readers’ accurate knowledge. Three experiments were performed to examine how individuals process incorrect information during reading. Participants read stories describing familiar historical scenarios. These scenarios included historically accurate or inaccurate outcomes. The scenarios also included contexts that either supported accurate outcomes or utilized suspense to call into question the likelihood of those events. Overall, participants took longer to read inaccurate outcomes than to read accurate outcomes, but suspenseful contexts attenuated this difference. This pattern held even with a task that encouraged readers to consider their prior knowledge. Story contexts were particularly influential when modified to present novel scenarios. These results provide insight into the role of prior knowledge when readers encounter incorrect information, and into the consequences of such experiences.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Albrecht, J. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (1993). Updating a mental model: Maintaining both local and global coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 19, 1061–1069.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82, 197–202.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. (1989). Effects of prior knowledge activation modes and text structure on nonscience majors’ comprehension of physics. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 97–102.
Anderson, R. C., & Pichert, J. W. (1978). Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17, 1–12.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blasko, D. G., & Briihl, D. S. (1997). Reading and recall of metaphorical sentences: Effects of familiarity and context. Metaphor & Symbol, 12, 261–285.
Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., & Turner, T. J. (1979). Scripts in memory for texts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 177–220.
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
Brewer, W. F. (1996). The nature of narrative suspense and the problem of rereading. In P. Vorderer, H. J. Wulff, & M. Friedrichsen (Eds.), Suspense: Conceptualizations, theoretical analyses, and empirical Explorations (pp. 107–127). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chiesi, H., Spilich, G. J., & Voss, J. F. (1979). Acquisition of domainrelated information in relation to high and low domain knowledge. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 257–274.
Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 265–278.
Cook, A. E., Guéraud, S., Was, C. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2007). Foregrounding effects during reading, revisited. Discourse Processes, 44, 91–111.
Cook, A. E., Halleran, J. G., & O’Brien, E. J. (1998). What is readily available during reading? A memory-based view of text processing. Discourse Processes, 26, 109–129.
Cook, A. E., & Myers, J. L. (2004). Processing discourse roles in scripted narratives: The influences of context and world knowledge. Journal of Memory & Language, 50, 268–288.
Diakidoy, I. N., & Kendeou, P. (2001). Facilitating conceptual change in astronomy: A comparison of the effectiveness of two instructional approaches. Learning & Instruction, 11, 1–20.
Egidi, G., & Gerrig, R. J. (2006). Readers’ experiences of characters’ goals and actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 1322–1329.
Ferreira, F., & Clifton, C. (1986). The independence of syntactic processing. Journal of Memory & Language, 25, 348–368.
Garrod, S., & Terras, M. (2000). The contribution of lexical and situational knowledge to resolving discourse roles: Bonding and resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 42, 526–544.
Gerrig, R. J. (1989). Suspense in the absence of uncertainty. Journal of Memory & Language, 28, 633–648.
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information. Psychological Science, 2, 336–340.
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.
Gilbert, D. T., Krull, D. S., & Malone, P. S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 59, 601–613.
Gilbert, D. T., Tafarodi, R. W., & Malone, P. S. (1993). You can’t not believe everything you read. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 65, 221–233.
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2002). In the minďs eye: Transportationimagery model of narrative persuasion. In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 315–341). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.
Guzzetti, B. J., Williams, W. O., Skeels, S. A., & Wu, S. M. (1997). Influence of text structure on learning counterintuitive physics concepts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 701–719.
Halldorson, M., & Singer, M. (2002). Inference processes: Integrating relevant knowledge and text information. Discourse Processes, 34, 145–161.
Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29, 440–446.
Kendeou, P., Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2003). The influence of readers’ prior knowledge on text comprehension and learning from text. In R. Nata (Ed.), Progress in education (pp. 189–209). New York: Nova.
Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.
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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, R. B., Mulligan, E. J., & Walton, J. L. (2005). Accessing dis inactant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 387–395.
Linderholm, T., & van den Broek, P. (2002). The effects of reading purpose and working memory capacity on the processing of expository text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 778–784.
Long, D. L., Wilson, J., Hurley, R., & Prat, C. S. (2006). Assessing text representations with recognition: The interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 816–827.
Magliano, J. P., & Radvansky, G. A. (2001). Goal coordination in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 372–376.
Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader’s prior knowledge. Reading Research & Instruction, 26, 222–238.
Marsh, E. J., & Fazio, L. K. (2006). Learning errors from fiction: Difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1140–1149.
Marsh, E. J., Meade, M. L., & Roediger, H. L., III (2003). Learning facts from fiction. Journal of Memory & Language, 49, 519–536.
McCullough, D. (2005). 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1989). Inferences about contextually defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 1134–1146.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1990). Textual inferences: Models and measures. In D. A. Balota, G. B. Flores d’Arcais, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Comprehension processes in reading (pp. 403–422). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–287.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition & Instruction, 14, 1–43.
McNamara, D. S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2004). Suppressing irrelevant information: Knowledge activation or inhibition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 465–482.
Morris, R. K. (1994). Lexical and message-level sentence context effects on fixation times in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 92–103.
Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1980). Norms of 300 general-information questions: Accuracy of recall, latency of recall, and feeling-of-knowing ratings. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 338–368.
O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E., & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 24, 1200–1210.
Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229–235.
Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201–209.
Potts, G. R., & Peterson, S. B. (1985). Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse. Journal of Memory & Language, 24, 107–118.
Potts, G. R., St. John, M. F., & Kirson, D. (1989). Incorporating new information into existing world knowledge. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 303–333.
Prentice, D. A., Gerrig, R. J., & Bailis, D. S. (1997). What readers bring to the processing of fictional texts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 416–420.
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Readers’ reality-driven and plotdriven analyses in narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 30, 779–788.
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2006). Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preferences. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 54–67.
Rapp, D. N., Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (2001). Readers’ trait based models of characters in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 737–750.
Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019–2032.
Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (in press). Noticing and revising discrepancies as texts unfold. Discourse Processes.
Rapp, D. N., & van den Broek, P. (2005). Dynamic text comprehension: An integrative view of reading. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 276–279.
Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Kendeou, P., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 289–312.
Rizzella, M. L., & O’Brien, E. J. (2002). Retrieval of concepts in script-based texts and narratives: The influence of general world knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 780–790.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seifert, C. M. (2002). The continued influence of misinformation in memory: What makes a correction effective? In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and Theory (Vol. 41, pp. 265–292). San Diego: Academic Press.
Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 54, 574–591.
Singer, M., & Halldorson, M. (1996). Constructing and validating motive bridging inferences. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 1–38.
Singer, M., Halldorson, M., Lear, J. C., & Andrusiak, P. (1992). Validation of causal bridging inferences in discourse understanding. Journal of Memory & Language, 31, 507–524.
Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249–260.
Sulin, R. A., & Dooling, D. J. (1974). Intrusion of a thematic idea in retention of prose. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 255–262.
Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K., & Garnsey, S. (1994). Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory & Language, 33, 285–318.
van den Broek, P., Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2005). Integrating memory-based and constructionist processes in accounts of reading comprehension. Discourse Processes, 39, 299–316.
Wheeler, S. C., Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (1999). Fictional narratives change beliefs: Replications of Prentice, Gerrig, and Bailis (1997) with mixed corroboration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 136–141.
Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20, 920–933.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is based on work supported by Institute of Education Sciences Grant R305G040021 and a Faculty Summer Fellowship from the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rapp, D.N. How do readers handle incorrect information during reading?. Memory & Cognition 36, 688–701 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.688
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.688