Memory & Cognition

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 281–295 | Cite as

Would a madman have been so wise as this?” The effects of source credibility and message credibility on validation

  • Jeffrey E. Foy
  • Paul C. LoCasto
  • Stephen W. Briner
  • Samantha Dyar
Article

Abstract

Readers rapidly check new information against prior knowledge during validation, but research is inconsistent as to whether source credibility affects validation. We argue that readers are likely to accept highly plausible assertions regardless of source, but that high source credibility may boost acceptance of claims that are less plausible based on general world knowledge. In Experiment 1, participants read narratives with assertions for which the plausibility varied depending on the source. For high credibility sources, we found that readers were faster to read information confirming these assertions relative to contradictory information. We found the opposite patterns for low credibility characters. In Experiment 2, readers read claims from the same high or low credibility sources, but the claims were always plausible based on general world knowledge. Readers consistently took longer to read contradictory information, regardless of source. In Experiment 3, participants read modified versions of “The Tell-Tale Heart,” which was narrated entirely by an unreliable source. We manipulated the plausibility of a target event, as well as whether high credibility characters within the story provided confirmatory or contradictory information about the narrator’s description of the target event. Though readers rated the narrator as being insane, they were more likely to believe the narrator’s assertions about the target event when it was plausible and corroborated by other characters. We argue that sourcing research would benefit from focusing on the relationship between source credibility, message credibility, and multiple sources within a text.

Keywords

Sourcing Credibility Validation Comprehension 

References

  1. Abdullah, R., Garrison, B., Salwen, M., Driscoll, P., & Casey, D. (2002). The credibility of newspapers, television news and online news. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Association for Journalism and Mass Communication, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht, J. E., O’Brien, E. J., Mason, R. A., & Myers, J. L. (1995). The role of perspective in the accessibility of goals during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 21, 364–372. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bal, M. (2009). Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative (3rd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.Google Scholar
  5. Booth, W. C. (1983). The rhetoric of fiction (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Connell, L., & Keane, M. T. (2006). A model of plausibility. Cognitive Science, 30, 95–120. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_53 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2005). What have we been missing all along? The role of general world knowledge in discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 39, 265–278. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook, A. E., & O’Brien, E. J. (2014). Knowledge activation, integration, and validation during text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 51, 26–49. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egidi, G., & Gerrig, R. J. (2006). Readers’ experiences of characters’ goals and actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 1322–1329. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foy, J. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2014). Readers’ responses when characters act on completed goals: Impact of characters’ mental state and task focus. Discourse Processes, 51, 312–332. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.867800 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Guéraud, S., Harmon, M. E., & Peracchi, K. A. (2005). Updating situation models: The memory-based contribution. Discourse Processes, 39, 243–263. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2005.9651682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagoort, P., Hald, L., Bastiaansen, M., & Petersson, K. M. (2004). Integration of word meaning and world knowledge in language comprehension. Science, 304, 438–441. doi:10.1126/science.1095455 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Henkel, L. A., & Mattson, M. E. (2011). Reading is believing: The truth effect and source credibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 1705–1721. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.08.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., Horton, W. S., Jenkins, R., & Rapp, D. N. (2014). Pilgrims sailing the Titanic: Plausibility effects on memory for misinformation. Memory & Cognition, 42, 305–324. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0359-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Isberner, M., & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15–22. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 39, 854–865. doi:10.1037/a0029468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lombardi, D., Seyranian, V., & Sinatra, G. M. (2014). Source effects and plausibility judgments when reading about climate change. Discourse Processes, 51, 75–92. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school climate change conceptions. Language and Instruction, 27, 50–62. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Magliano, J. P., & Radvansky, G. A. (2001). Goal coordination in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 372–376. doi:10.3758/BF03196175 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C., & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 37, 913–934. doi:10.1037/a0022964 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McCarthy, K. S., & Goldman, S. R. (2015). Comprehension of short stories: Effects of task Instructions on literary interpretation. Discourse Processes, 52, 585–608. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2014.967610 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Zwarun, L. (2003). College student web use, perceptions of information credibility, and verification behavior. Computers & Education, 41, 271–290. doi:10.1016/S0360-1315(03)00049-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Brien, E. J., Cook, A. E., & Guéraud, S. (2010). Accessibility of outdated information. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 36, 979–991. doi:10.1037/a0019763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 and Cognition, 24, 1200–1210. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1200 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Phelan, J. (2007). Rhetoric/ethics. In D. Herman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to narrative (pp. 203–216). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poe, E. A. (2011). Collected works, stories, and poems. San Diego: Canterbury Classics.Google Scholar
  31. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243–281. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rapp, D. N., Hinze, S. R., Slaten, D. G., & Horton, W. S. (2014). Amazing stories: Acquiring and avoiding inaccurate information from fiction. Discourse Processes, 51, 50–74. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rapp, D. N., & Kendeou, P. (2007). Revising what readers know: Updating text representations during narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 35, 2019–2032. doi:10.3758/BF03192934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Richter, T. (2006). What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analyzing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models. Discourse Processes, 41, 221–250. doi:10.1207/s15326950dp4103_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337–355. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2015.1025665 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538–558. doi:10.1037/a0014038 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schroeder, S., Richter, T., & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237–255. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2008.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Self, C. (2009). Credibility. In D. W. Stacks & M. B. Salwen (Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 435–456). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361–366. doi:10.1177/0963721413495236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skagerberg, E. M., & Wright, D. B. (2009). Susceptibility to postidentification feedback is affected by source credibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 506–523. doi:10.1002/acp.1470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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. doi:10.1037/a0021331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191–210. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhernrich, 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. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 252–260. doi:10.1086/208704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zwaan, R. A. (1994). Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 20, 920–933. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey E. Foy
    • 1
  • Paul C. LoCasto
    • 1
  • Stephen W. Briner
    • 2
  • Samantha Dyar
    • 1
  1. 1.Quinnipiac UniversityHamdenUSA
  2. 2.Sacred Heart UniversityFairfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations