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

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.

Using eye-tracking to assess sourcing during multiple document reading: A critical analysis

“…In such complex reading contexts, they may therefore profitably resort to the strategy of evaluating information indirectly in light of the features of the sources (termed "second-hand evaluation" by Stadtler and Bromme). This is consistent with the Discrepancy-Induced Source Comprehension (D-ISC) model (Braasch & Bråten, 2017;Braasch, Rouet, Vibert, & Britt, 2012), which describes processes occurring when readers try to understand conflicting information presented by different sources. According to D-ISC, readers may find it difficult, if not impossible, to construct a coherent mental representation of an issue if conflicting information is presented across multiple sources.…”

“…According to D-ISC, readers may find it difficult, if not impossible, to construct a coherent mental representation of an issue if conflicting information is presented across multiple sources. In such situations, readers will therefore strategically shift cognitive resources towards constructing a mental representation of the issue that includes source information (e.g., about the document authors) as organizational elements (Braasch & Bråten, 2017). In other words, conflicting information across multiple sources becomes an impetus for strategic sourcing processes and such processes, in turn, allow readers to construct a meaningful interpretation of the issue despite existing conflicts.…”

“…One set of studies have used eye-tracking measures to test the hypothesis that readers tend to consider sources in trying to resolve inconsistencies across documents, in accordance with the D-ISC model (Braasch & Bråten, 2017;Braasch et al, 2012). For example, authors' affiliations could be used to interpret the extent to which they are knowledgeable about the issue and likely to provide unbiased information about it.…”

“…Supporting the D-ISC model, participants spent more time reading the source information when reading inconsistent compared to consistent information. However, another set of studies have used eye-tracking indices of sourcing in a more exploratory (rather than experimental) manner, that is, without a clear connection to theoretical models of sourcing, such as the D-ISC model (Braasch & Bråten, 2017). Thus, none of these studies investigated sourcing during specific reading episodes, such as when encountering conflicting information, but rather tried to capture sourcing through eye-tracking from beginning to end.…”

“…In sum, existing evidence suggests that current eye-tracking indices of sourcing are not universally valid measures, and that they may be especially problematic when they are not tied to experimental manipulations but, rather, used in exploratory studies. In the present study, we built on the D-ISC model in assuming that sourcing represents conscious processing in the service of constructing coherent mental representations (Braasch & Bråten, 2017), and that it, therefore, will be more adequately measured by means of a subjective measure, such as an interview, than by means of eye-tracking. Therefore, we expect that sourcing as measured by what could be considered gold standard measures (i.e., source citation in essays and memory for sources) would be predicted by participants' reporting of sourcing activities in a post-reading interview, but not by different eye-tracking indicators of attention to source information during reading.…”