Memory for Scientific Arguments and Their Sources: Claim-Evidence Consistency Matters

Autor/inn/en	Steffens, Brent; Britt, M. Anne; Braasch, Jason L.; Strømsø, Helge; Bråten, Ivar
Titel	Memory for Scientific Arguments and Their Sources: Claim-Evidence Consistency Matters
Quelle	In: Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 51 (2014) 1-2, S.117-142 (26 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0163-853X
DOI	10.1080/0163853X.2013.855868
Schlagwörter	Memory; Persuasive Discourse; Scientific and Technical Information; Information Sources; Evidence; Reliability; Undergraduate Students; Recall (Psychology); Reading; Student Surveys + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Gedächtnis; Persuasion; Persuasive Kommunikation; Information source; Informationsquelle; Evidenz; Reliabilität; Abberufung; Leseprozess; Lesen; Schülerbefragung
Abstract	We investigated whether memory for scientific arguments and their sources were affected by the appropriateness of the claim-evidence relationship. Undergraduates read health articles in one of four conditions derived by crossing claim type (causal with definite qualifier, associative with tentative qualifier) and evidence type (experimental, correlational). This manipulation produced articles that overstated the results of a study and articles that understated their results, along with appropriate controls for each. We found that evidence and, to a lesser extent, source information was recalled more poorly for articles that overstated results (i.e., causal claims using correlational evidence) than for those where evidence was appropriate (i.e., causal claim with experimental evidence). Readers rejected these overstatements based on the study design rather than reprocessing the text. In contrast, understatements (tentative claim, experimental evidence) were recalled just as well as their appropriate control; however, the target content was reprocessed at a higher rate. These findings suggest that readers may remember an inappropriate definite conclusion but fail to recall the evidence used to support it. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10