Dealing With Uncertainty: Readers' Memory for and Use of Conflicting Information From Science Texts as Function of Presentation Format and Source Expertise
Abstract
Past research has shown that readers often fail to notice conflicts in text. In our present study we investigated whether accessing information from multiple documents instead of a single document might alleviate this problem by motivating readers to integrate information. We further tested whether this effect would be moderated by source expertise. One hundred undergraduates read the same medical information purportedly written by either medical experts or laypeople, which was presented as one document or spread across four documents. Results revealed partial support for our hypotheses. Readers of multiple documents exhibited superior memory for conflicts and provided a more balanced description of conflicting information in essays they wrote. Variation of author expertise moderated the effect of presentation format in the essay task but not on the memory test. The results extend previous research by showing that multiple documents reading also stimulates the integration of conflicting information.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Digital reading is often more practical, which is why readers tend to access digital materials to pursue a goal, which can potentially increase reading motivation and engagement.
“Digital reading is often more practical, which is why readers tend to access digital materials to pursue a goal (e.g., gaining more information about a topic, checking for timetables, recipes…) (Stadtler et al., 2013), which can potentially increase reading motivation and engagement (Assor et al., 2002).”
From Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension (2025) · cites this paper as Stadtler et al., 2013
Cites
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
(2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819 · Cited by 1,595 · see citing works
Rouet, J.-F. (2006) · doi:10.4324/9780203820094 · Cited by 337 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Recently, several scholars have emphasized that the immediate access to scientific information on the Internet comes with new challenges in the acquisition of knowledge, including the need to handle conflicting information presented by sources of varying topic expertise (Goldman et al., 2011; Leu et al., 2007; Rouet,…”
BackgroundAdams, S. A. (2010) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006 · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour
Kappes, A., Nussberger, A.-M., Faber, N. S., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0372-x · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Altamura, L., Vargas, C., & Salmerón, L. (2025) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543231216463 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
What Makes Everyday Scientific Reasoning So Challenging?
(2017) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.006 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Münster (DE)
- Venue
- Cognition and Instruction
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2013-04
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 130-150
- ISSN
- 0737-0008 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-690X
- OpenAlex
- W2002609874
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 20.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition and Instruction (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- conflicting information, scientific texts, reader memory, presentation format, multiple documents, source expertise, author expertise, information integration, uncertainty, medical information, scientific literacy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
