Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Further variables were measured but not reported here for reasons of space. Nevertheless, to complete the given information, we shall list excluded variables: Participants assessed the ECSC from an assumed expert perspective and indicated whether they would feel confident about deciding on the claims’ veracity themselves or would need further expert advice to do so. These measures are not reported elsewhere and were assessed mostly after the reported ones; therefore we do not expect confounding effects.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, L. (2014). The “trust” heuristic: Arguments from authority in public health. Health Communication, 29(10), 1043–1056. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.831685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: And sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S. (2005). Health information online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 378–405. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635. doi:10.1086/266350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, Fliednerstraße 21, 48149, Münster, Germany

    Eva Thomm & Rainer Bromme

Authors
  1. Eva Thomm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rainer Bromme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eva Thomm.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomm, E., Bromme, R. How source information shapes lay interpretations of science conflicts: interplay between sourcing, conflict explanation, source evaluation, and claim evaluation. Read Writ 29, 1629–1652 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation