How Nonexperts Understand Conflicting Information on Social Science Issues

Abstract

When people read Web-based science-related journalistic articles, they usually read more than one text. As a consequence, they face the task of constructing a coherent mental model of the issue on the basis of conflicting information. We assume that recipients handle this task by evaluating the plausibility of information against their current understanding and prior knowledge (epistemic validation). On the one hand, information judged as implausible is often not processed further, yielding a bias toward plausible information in the mental model (plausibility bias). On the other hand, recipients can also engage in elaborative processing when they are motivated to develop a justified point of view (epistemic reading goal), which should lead to a rich mental model in contrast to the goal of memorizing facts (receptive reading goal). The present study investigated the relationships of perceived plausibility and comprehension of multiple articles related to a social science topic (the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] study) and effects of a recipient’s reading goal, using multilevel models (items nested within recipients) on a trial-by-trial basis. As predicted, information judged as plausible was more likely to be integrated into the recipient’s mental model. This plausibility bias was independent of the recipient’s reading goal. However, an epistemic reading goal led to an overall stronger mental model than did a receptive reading goal. Moreover, we found a positive relationship between perceived plausibility and memory for text. The present results demonstrate that recipients make sense of science communication about controversial issues by actively monitoring the plausibility of information and regulating comprehension processes according to their reading goals.