References
- Blanc, N., Kendeou, P., Van Den Broek, P., & Brouillet, D. (2008). Updating situation models during reading of news reports: Evidence from empirical data and simulations. Discourse Processes, 45(2), 103–121. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530701792784
- Braasch, J. L., Bråten, I., & McCrudden, M. T. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of multiple source use. Routledge.
- Braasch, J. L., & Graesser, A. C. (2020). Avoiding and overcoming misinformation on the internet. Critical Thinking in Psychology, 125–151.
- Braasch, J. L. G., & Bråten, I. (2017). The discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) model: Basic assumptions and preliminary evidence. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 167–181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1323219
- Braasch, J. L. G., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Steffens, B., & Strømsø, H. I. (2014). Sensitivity to inaccurate argumentation in health news articles: Potential contributions of readers’ topic and epistemic beliefs. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 117–137). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Braasch, J. L. G., Rouet, J.-F., Vibert, N., & Britt, M. A. (2012). Readers' use of source information in text comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 40(3), 450–465. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6
- Bråten, I., & Braasch, J. L. (2018). The role of conflict in multiple source use. Handbook of multiple source use, 184–201.
- Bråten, I., Ferguson, L. E., Strømsø, H. I., & Anmarkrud, Ø. (2014). Students working with multiple conflicting documents on a scientific issue: Relations between epistemic cognition while reading and sourcing and argumentation in essays. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(Pt 1), 58–85. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12005
- Bråten, I., Stadtler, M., & Salmerón, L. (2018). The role of sourcing in discourse comprehension. In M. F. Schober, M. A. Britt, & D. N. Rapp (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
- Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47(1), 1–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902959646
- Britt, M. A., & Gabrys, G. (2002). Implications of document-level literacy skills for Web site design. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(2), 170–176. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03195439
- Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R., & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In Susan R. Goldman, Arthur C. Graesser, and Paul van den Broek (Eds.). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Britt, M. A., & Rouet, J. F. (2012). Learning with multiple documents: Component skills and their acquisition. In Alexandra List, Doug Lombardi, Panayiota Kendeou, Peggy Van Meter (Eds.). Enhancing the quality of learning: Dispositions, instruction, and learning processes (pp. 276–314). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis (Routledge).
- Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons' capabilities to judge experts' pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 241–252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12252
- Campbell, S. J., & Raney, G. E. (2016). A 25-year replication of Katz et al.'s (1988) metaphor norms . Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 330–340. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0575-2
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Measles. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html
- Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1998). An empirical test of a taxonomy of responses to anomalous data in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 623–654. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<623::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-O
- Ecker, U. K., Swire, B., & Lewandowsky, S. (2014). Correcting misinformation—A challenge for education and cognitive science. In D. N. Rapp & J. L. G. Braasch (Eds.), Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 13–38). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2008). Digital media and youth: Unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility (pp. 5–27). MacArthur Foundation Digital Media and Learning Initiative.
- Freed, G. L., Clark, S. J., Butchart, A. T., Singer, D. C., & Davis, M. M. (2011). Sources and perceived credibility of vaccine-safety information for parents. Pediatrics, 127(Supplement), S107–S112. doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1722P
- Glanz, J. M., Kraus, C. R., & Daley, M. F. (2015). Addressing parental vaccine concerns: Engagement, balance, and timing. PLoS Biology, 13(8), e1002227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002227
- 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(4), 356–381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.027
- Hakala, C. M., & O’Brien, E. J. (1995). Strategies for resolving coherence breaks in reading. Discourse Processes, 20(2), 167–185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544936
- Horne, Z., Powell, D., Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2015). Countering antivaccination attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(33), 10321–10324. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504019112
- Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLoS one, 9(2), e89177.
- Kardash, C. A., Braasch, J. L. G., Ankney, R., Cogliano, M., & Kuch, F. (2017, August). Stability of adults’ childhood vaccination beliefs when reading multiple conflicting documents. Part of the symposium: Epistemic cognition, source evaluation, and knowledge in the post-truth era. Paper presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
- Kardash, C. M., & Scholes, R. J. (1996). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemological beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 260–271. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.260
- Kessler, E. D., Braasch, J. L. G., & Kardash, C. M. (2019). Individual differences in revising (and maintaining) accurate and inaccurate beliefs about childhood vaccinations. Discourse Processes, 56, 415–428. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1596709
- Lawless, K. A., Goldman, S. R., Gomez, K., Manning, F, & Braasch, J. L. G. (2012). Assessing multiple source comprehension through evidence-centered design. In John P. Sabatini, Teneha O'Reilly, & Elizabeth R. Albro (Eds.). Reaching an understanding: Innovations in how we view reading assessment (pp. 3–17). Lanahm, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
- Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31(2), 151–175. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
- Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2014). Fostering multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9(1), 51–74. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-013-9111-x
- Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2016). Effects of text-belief consistency and reading task on the strategic validation of multiple texts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 31(4), 479–497. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0270-9
- Maier, J., Richter, T., & Britt, M. A. (2018). Cognitive processes underlying the text‐belief consistency effect: An eye‐movement study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 171–185. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3391
- McCrudden, M. T., & Barnes, A. (2016). Differences in student reasoning about belief-relevant arguments: A mixed methods study. Metacognition and Learning, 11(3), 275–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-015-9148-0
- McCrudden, M. T., Stenseth, T., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2016). The effects of topic familiarity, author expertise, and content relevance on Norwegian students’ document selection: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(2), 147–162. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000057
- Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2015). Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine, 33(3), 459–464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017
- Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842. doi:https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365
- O'Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 326–338.
- Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3(4), 229–236. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00034.x
- Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. The construction of mental representations during reading, 88108.
- Rouet, J. F., Britt, M. A., Caroux, L., Nivet, C., & Le Bigot, L. (2009, August). The influence of story consistency and reading context on the construction of documents models from multiple sources. In 13th Biennial International Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, EARLI 2009.
- Richter, T. (2015). Validation and comprehension of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52(5-6), 337–355. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1025665
- Richter, T., & Maier, J. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52(3), 148–166. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1322968
- Rouet, J. F., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In Daniel L. Dinsmore, Luke K. Fryer, Meghan M. Parkinson (Eds.). Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19–52). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis (Routledge).
- Rouet, J. F., & Potocki, A. (2018). De la lectura a la alfabetización documental: Aprender a buscar, evaluar e integrar información de diversos textos. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 41(3), 415–446. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2018.1480313
- Saux, G., Britt, A., Le Bigot, L., Vibert, N., Burin, D., & Rouet, J. F. (2017). Conflicting but close: Readers' integration of information sources as a function of their disagreement. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 151–167. doi:https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0644-5
- Saux, G., Ros, C., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., Burin, D. I., & Rouet, J. F. (2018). Readers’ selective recall of source features as a function of claim discrepancy and task demands. Discourse Processes, 55(5-6), 525–544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1463722
- Seifert, C. M. (2014). The continued influence effect: The persistence of misinformation in memory and reasoning following correction. In David N. Rapp & Jason L.G. Braasch (Eds.). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 39–71). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
- Singer, M. (2019). Challenges in processes of validation and comprehension. Discourse Processes, 56(5-6), 465–483.
- Strømsø, H. I., & Bråten, I. (2009). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and multiple‐text comprehension among upper secondary students. Educational Psychology, 29(4), 425–445. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410903046864
- Swire, B., Ecker, U. K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1948–1961. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000422
- Van Strien, J. L., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2014). Dealing with conflicting information from multiple nonlinear texts: Effects of prior attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 101–111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.021
- Van Strien, J. L., Kammerer, Y., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2016). How attitude strength biases information processing and evaluation on the web. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 245–252. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.057
- von der Mühlen, S., Richter, T., Schmid, S., Schmidt, E. M., & Berthold, K. (2016). The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: A student–scientist comparison. Reading and Writing, 29(8), 1677–1698. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9601-0
- Walraven, A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Boshuizen, H. P. (2009). How students evaluate information and sources when searching the World Wide Web for information. Computers & Education, 52(1), 234–246. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.003
- 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:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.73