Content integration across multiple documents reduces memory for sources

The Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) Model: Basic Assumptions and Preliminary Evidence

“…In the second main section, we review empirical evidence for the processing and representational assumptions DISCREPANCIES INDUCE SOURCING 5 of D-ISC from single and multiple text comprehension research. Although the paradigms and materials used across these empirical studies are broad in scope, all involve situations in which a reader has to deal with information in text that contradicts information presented in previouslyread text (either within the same text or across multiple texts), or with prior beliefs or knowledge activated from long-term memory Braasch, et al, 2012;Braasch, McCabe, & Daniel, 2016;Bråten, Salmerón, & Strømsø, 2016;Kammerer & Gerjets, 2012;Kammerer, Kalbfell, & Gerjets, 2016;Maier & Richter, 2013;Rouet, Le Bigot, de Pereyra, & Britt, 2016). The goal of this section is to evaluate the degree to which the various effects derived from experiments support the processing assumptions of D-ISC, which describes moment-by-moment changes during reading.…”

“…Any relationship across the semantic content expressed by multiple accounts, however, can be considered as falling along a continuum from complete agreement to unresolvable conflict. When texts are in agreement about a topic, or when discrepancies are subtle or difficult to detect, readers will likely proceed to construct a coherent mental model of the situation described in a text or across multiple texts (Braasch, et al, 2016;Kurby, Britt, & Magliano, 2005). Since the D-ISC model presupposes that discrepancy is an impetus for sourcing, agreement amongst ideas may obviate the need to attend to sources, and disrupt the construction of source-content links.…”

Sourcing in the reading process: introduction to the special issue

“…In line with Rouet et al's (2016) expectations, readers mention more sources in their summary of discrepant than of consistent stories (Experiments 1 and 2) and better remember sources from discrepant stories (Experiment 3). Braasch, McCabe, and Daniel (2016) examine how the textual factor message congruency affects readers' source memory in multiple-document reading scenarios. The authors assume that statements by different sources that are semantically congruent stimulate readers to engage more in semantic content integration than statements that are semantically distinct.…”

“…This in turn should lead to poorer source memory among readers of semantically congruent compared to semantically distinct statements. In three experiments, Braasch et al (2016) present readers with statements from different sources that vary in semantic congruency and afterwards assess participants' source memory. The findings confirm that source memory is impaired after reading semantically congruent compared to distinct statements (Experiment 1).…”

Conflicting but close: Readers’ integration of information sources as a function of their disagreement

“…So far, the focus has been put on the enhancing effect of discrepancies, but what exactly happens when the statements present overlapping arguments? Only recently has research begun to explore this question systematically (Braasch, McCabe, & Daniel, 2016). Our recognition data specifically suggest that the source memory enhancement effect cannot be attributed exclusively to constructing source-content links, but also to the accessibility of the source nodes in the first term.…”