Readers’ Processing and Use of Source Information as a Function of Its Usefulness to Explain Conflicting Scientific Claims

Steffen Gottschling*, Yvonne Kammerer, Peter Gerjets

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

The present research examines how the usefulness of source information to explain conflicting scientific claims affects laypersons’ processing of this information as they seek possible explanations for the conflicting scientific claims in the sources and during resolution of the conflict. In an eye-tracking experiment, we presented 76 participants with two conflicting scientific claims (on a controversial nanotechnology issue) put forward by two scientists (sources) that did or did not differ in their implied trustworthiness. We expected differences in trustworthiness to be useful source information for claim evaluation and explanation of the conflict. This should lead to longer processing of the source information during reading, to a stronger explanation of the conflict through differences in the scientists’ motivations, and to stronger agreement with the claim of the source which was more trustworthy. Our results show that differences in the sources’ trustworthiness indeed led to increased visual attention to source information during reading. Moreover, the source information affected individuals’ explanation of the conflict as well as their claim agreement: Individuals in the condition with differences in trustworthiness agreed more strongly with scientists’ motivations as a potential explanation for the conflict and agreed more strongly with the claim of the more trustworthy source than the individuals in the control condition. These results are discussed in the context of the content-source integration (CSI) model.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)429-446
Number of pages18
JournalDiscourse Processes
Volume56
Issue number5-6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 May 2019

Fingerprint

source of information
trustworthiness
Processing
Nanotechnology
layperson
nanotechnology
Experiments
Reader
Usefulness
experiment
evaluation
Trustworthiness

Cite this

@article{8fef79df623b4e4290c919857cda199e,
title = "Readers’ Processing and Use of Source Information as a Function of Its Usefulness to Explain Conflicting Scientific Claims",
abstract = "The present research examines how the usefulness of source information to explain conflicting scientific claims affects laypersons’ processing of this information as they seek possible explanations for the conflicting scientific claims in the sources and during resolution of the conflict. In an eye-tracking experiment, we presented 76 participants with two conflicting scientific claims (on a controversial nanotechnology issue) put forward by two scientists (sources) that did or did not differ in their implied trustworthiness. We expected differences in trustworthiness to be useful source information for claim evaluation and explanation of the conflict. This should lead to longer processing of the source information during reading, to a stronger explanation of the conflict through differences in the scientists’ motivations, and to stronger agreement with the claim of the source which was more trustworthy. Our results show that differences in the sources’ trustworthiness indeed led to increased visual attention to source information during reading. Moreover, the source information affected individuals’ explanation of the conflict as well as their claim agreement: Individuals in the condition with differences in trustworthiness agreed more strongly with scientists’ motivations as a potential explanation for the conflict and agreed more strongly with the claim of the more trustworthy source than the individuals in the control condition. These results are discussed in the context of the content-source integration (CSI) model.",
author = "Steffen Gottschling and Yvonne Kammerer and Peter Gerjets",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1080/0163853X.2019.1610305",
language = "English",
volume = "56",
pages = "429--446",
journal = "Discourse Processes",
issn = "0163-853X",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "5-6",

}

Readers’ Processing and Use of Source Information as a Function of Its Usefulness to Explain Conflicting Scientific Claims. / Gottschling, Steffen; Kammerer, Yvonne; Gerjets, Peter.

In: Discourse Processes, Vol. 56, No. 5-6, 29.05.2019, p. 429-446.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Readers’ Processing and Use of Source Information as a Function of Its Usefulness to Explain Conflicting Scientific Claims

AU - Gottschling, Steffen

AU - Kammerer, Yvonne

AU - Gerjets, Peter

PY - 2019/5/29

Y1 - 2019/5/29

N2 - The present research examines how the usefulness of source information to explain conflicting scientific claims affects laypersons’ processing of this information as they seek possible explanations for the conflicting scientific claims in the sources and during resolution of the conflict. In an eye-tracking experiment, we presented 76 participants with two conflicting scientific claims (on a controversial nanotechnology issue) put forward by two scientists (sources) that did or did not differ in their implied trustworthiness. We expected differences in trustworthiness to be useful source information for claim evaluation and explanation of the conflict. This should lead to longer processing of the source information during reading, to a stronger explanation of the conflict through differences in the scientists’ motivations, and to stronger agreement with the claim of the source which was more trustworthy. Our results show that differences in the sources’ trustworthiness indeed led to increased visual attention to source information during reading. Moreover, the source information affected individuals’ explanation of the conflict as well as their claim agreement: Individuals in the condition with differences in trustworthiness agreed more strongly with scientists’ motivations as a potential explanation for the conflict and agreed more strongly with the claim of the more trustworthy source than the individuals in the control condition. These results are discussed in the context of the content-source integration (CSI) model.

AB - The present research examines how the usefulness of source information to explain conflicting scientific claims affects laypersons’ processing of this information as they seek possible explanations for the conflicting scientific claims in the sources and during resolution of the conflict. In an eye-tracking experiment, we presented 76 participants with two conflicting scientific claims (on a controversial nanotechnology issue) put forward by two scientists (sources) that did or did not differ in their implied trustworthiness. We expected differences in trustworthiness to be useful source information for claim evaluation and explanation of the conflict. This should lead to longer processing of the source information during reading, to a stronger explanation of the conflict through differences in the scientists’ motivations, and to stronger agreement with the claim of the source which was more trustworthy. Our results show that differences in the sources’ trustworthiness indeed led to increased visual attention to source information during reading. Moreover, the source information affected individuals’ explanation of the conflict as well as their claim agreement: Individuals in the condition with differences in trustworthiness agreed more strongly with scientists’ motivations as a potential explanation for the conflict and agreed more strongly with the claim of the more trustworthy source than the individuals in the control condition. These results are discussed in the context of the content-source integration (CSI) model.

U2 - 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1610305

DO - 10.1080/0163853X.2019.1610305

M3 - Article

VL - 56

SP - 429

EP - 446

JO - Discourse Processes

JF - Discourse Processes

SN - 0163-853X

IS - 5-6

ER -