In two experiments, we examined the role of discrepancy on readers' text processing of and memory for the sources of brief news reports. Each story included two assertions that were attributed to different sources. We manipulated whether the second assertion was either discrepant or consistent with the first assertion. On the basis of the discrepancy-induced source comprehension (D-ISC) assumption, we predicted that discrepant stories would promote deeper processing and better memory for the sources conveying the messages, as compared to consistent stories. As predicted, readers mentioned more sources in summaries of discrepant stories, recalled more sources, made more fixations, and displayed longer gaze times in source areas when reading discrepant than when reading consistent stories. In Experiment 2, we found enhanced memory for source-content links for discrepant stories even when intersentential connectors were absent, and regardless of the reading goals. Discussion was focused on discrepancies as one mechanism by which readers are prompted to encode source-content links more deeply, as a method of integrating disparate pieces of information into a coherent mental representation of a text.Keywords Discrepancies . Eye movements . Memory . Sources . Text comprehensionThere is an old saying that "there are two sides to every story." This saying describes the observation that, in everyday contexts, we are frequently presented with and must comprehend uncertain or tentative events, which have resulted in multiple interpretations. In newspaper reports, for example, a single event is often described (e.g., a fire in a building) that may be attributed to various reasons (sabotage vs. electrical malfunction), either within the same report or across several different ones. These kinds of discrepancies are notably different from simple errors in reporting; in fact, they are part and parcel of the state of affairs of the situation. In the present example, the cause of the fire may have been uncertain at the time that the newspapers were printed, investigation may be ongoing, and so on.The present experiments were designed to give some clarity regarding the cognitive mechanisms that operate during the comprehension of discrepancies like these when they appear in texts, particularly when different sources are associated with the conflicting pieces of information (e.g., "The detective claims that the fire in the building was due to sabotage. However, a journalist asserts that the fire was caused by an electrical malfunction."). In the present work, we argue that comprehending discrepancies of this kind requires that readers attend to-and at times rememberwho said what. More colloquially, in the event that readers have accessed a discrepancy during reading, are they more Mem Cogn (2012) 40:450-465 DOI 10.3758/s13421-011-0160-6 likely to pay attention to and remember the "two sides to the story," and if so, why? Do readers regularly monitor their understandings of texts and notice when texts present conflicting...

No abstract

Despite the importance of source attention and evaluation for learning from texts, little is known about the particular conditions that encourage sourcing during reading. In this article, basic assumptions of the Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) Model are presented, which describes the moment-by-moment cognitive processes that readers undergo when readingto-understand controversial messages. We then review supporting evidence from single and multiple text comprehension research. In the discussion, we draw conclusions based on the theoretical and empirical research, highlight limitations of what is known to date, and how further investigations of D-ISC might address these concerns.

Three experiments examined conceptual change from reading refutational texts and how such learning interacted with prior knowledge organization. Prior to reading, 3 groups of learners were identified on the basis of their prior knowledge of the targeted concept: 2 groups held misconceptions; 1 group was generally accurate. Experiment 1 tested learning from a text that contrasted a misconception and the correct conception of the phenomenon of airflow against learning from a text that repeated the correct scientific description twice. The 2 reader groups learned from both types of texts about equally. Experiment 2 contrasted a more traditional refutational text to the "repetition" text. Learning was better with the refutational than the repetition text for both misconception groups on both measures. Experiment 3 demonstrated that learners who held largely accurate conceptions prior to reading texts that presented misconceptions preserved their largely accurate performance. Overall, the results suggest that the inclusion of an explicit refutation of the misconception is critical for instigating knowledge revision when readers possess inaccurate prior conceptions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This study investigated note‐taking during multiple‐text reading across two different task conditions in relation to comprehension performance and self‐reports of strategy use. Forty‐four undergraduates read multiple texts about climate change to write an argument or a summary. Analysis of students’ spontaneous note‐taking during reading showed that intertextual elaboration strategies, as indicated by the notes, were related to deeper‐level, integrated comprehension for students reading to construct an argument, whereas no such relationship was observed for students reading to summarise information. Relations between note‐taking and self‐reporting of strategies suggested a heightened awareness of strategy use among students reading to construct an argument, with this, possibly, explaining why their note‐taking strategies accounted for variance in their comprehension performance. Discussion focuses on the unique contributions of the current work to multiple‐text strategy research.