Suppr超能文献

来源可信度与反驳性文本的处理

Source credibility and the processing of refutation texts.

作者信息

Van Boekel Martin, Lassonde Karla A, O'Brien Edward J, Kendeou Panayiota

机构信息

University of Minnesota, 250 Education Sciences Building 56 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.

Mankato State University, Mankato, MN, USA.

出版信息

Mem Cognit. 2017 Jan;45(1):168-181. doi: 10.3758/s13421-016-0649-0.

Abstract

The knowledge revision components framework (KReC) outlines the basic comprehension processes and text factors that can be accentuated to increase the potential for knowledge revision during reading. The goal of the present study was to explore source credibility as one such text factor. In Experiment 1, we established the utility of a set of refutation texts in influencing knowledge revision. Participants read ten refutation and ten control texts. The participants had faster reading times and higher posttest scores for the refutation than for the control texts, providing evidence for knowledge revision. In Experiment 2, we examined the influence of source credibility under normal reading conditions. Participants read 20 refutation texts, ten with high-credibility and ten with low-credibility sources. The reading times and posttest scores suggested that knowledge revision unfolded successfully, independent of credibility. Using the same texts, in Experiment 3 we examined the influence of direct instructions that made the credibility of the source of information more salient. When the credibility of the source was made salient, the revision process was disrupted in the low-credibility condition, as evidenced by slower reading times and lower posttest scores than in the high-credibility condition. The results add to our understanding of the factors that constrain knowledge revision during the reading of refutation texts, and are discussed in the context of the extant literature and KReC.

摘要

知识修正成分框架(KReC)概述了基本的理解过程和文本因素,这些因素可以被强化以增加阅读过程中知识修正的可能性。本研究的目的是探索信息源可信度这一文本因素。在实验1中,我们确定了一组反驳性文本在影响知识修正方面的效用。参与者阅读了十篇反驳性文本和十篇对照文本。与对照文本相比,参与者阅读反驳性文本的速度更快,测试后得分更高,这为知识修正提供了证据。在实验2中,我们考察了正常阅读条件下信息源可信度的影响。参与者阅读了20篇反驳性文本,其中十篇信息源可信度高,十篇信息源可信度低。阅读时间和测试后得分表明,知识修正顺利进行,与可信度无关。使用相同的文本,在实验3中,我们考察了使信息源可信度更显著的直接指导语的影响。当信息源的可信度变得显著时,在低可信度条件下修正过程受到干扰,这表现为阅读时间比高可信度条件下更慢,测试后得分更低。这些结果增进了我们对反驳性文本阅读过程中限制知识修正因素的理解,并在现有文献和KReC的背景下进行了讨论。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验