Multiple‐Text Comprehension and Evaluation: The Influence of Reading Goal, Belief Consistency, and Argument Type

Abstract

The present study examined how argument type (science based vs. personal case based), belief consistency (belief consistent vs. inconsistent) and reading goals (read to evaluate vs. read to learn) influence comprehension and trustworthiness evaluations for claim‐conflicting multiple texts. Undergraduates read four conflicting texts about the effects of vegan nutrition and completed four corresponding single‐text comprehension and trustworthiness tasks before completing a multiple‐text comprehension task. The results indicated better memory for personal case‐based texts that capitalized on everyday life experiences and emotions than science‐based texts in the multiple‐text comprehension task. Reading to evaluate benefitted memory only for the belief‐inconsistent personal text and contributed to lower trustworthiness ratings for all texts in comparison to reading to learn. The present study's findings highlight the importance of factors pertaining to argument quality, namely argument type, in comprehension and trustworthiness judgments.