Text-Processing Patterns During Misinformation-Processing: A Contrasting Case Studies Approach (Poster 10)

• In Event: Leveraging Constructed Responses to Understand Text Comprehension

Abstract

1. Objectives. Misinformation across multiple documents has become a significant problem recently given unbridled internet access (Braasch & Graesser, 2020). This is because information on the internet stems from a multitude of sources that vary in credibility (Carrasco-Farre, 2022). Growing evidence suggests that exposure to misinformation has important psychological consequences as well as a tendency to acquire this knowledge (Rapp & Salovich, 2018). Identifying factors protecting individuals from acquiring misinformation in the context of processing multiple documents has become an important area of research (Goldman et al., 2012). This study examined three research questions, 1.) Do people acquire misinformation in a multiple document setting? 2.) What protects people from acquiring misinformation? and 3.) What makes people susceptible to acquiring misinformation? CRs under think aloud task instructions provided the basis for addressing these questions.

2. Perspectives. This study adopts a perspective that constructionist processes are important for comprehension (Graesser et al., 1994) and are likely vital in effectively responding to misinformation (Goldman et al., 2012). When people actively process textual information and are instructed to think deeply about the passage, they are less likely to acquire the misinformation (Goldman et al., 2012, Jacovina et al., 2014). As such, variability in the propensity to self-explain when processing misinformation may be indicative of who is more or less susceptible to acquiring misinformation.

3. Method. College students were instructed to think-aloud while processing multiple documents that contained accurate information or misinformation about vaccines. Prior to and after reading the text set,participants completed an assessment regarding vaccine misconceptions. The study employed a contrastive case study that involved three cases of individuals who were most likely to acquire misinformation and three individuals who were least likely to acquire misinformation. A qualitative analysis of their think-aloud was conducted (Goldman et al., 2012).

4. Data Sources. College students (n = 6) produced CRs while reading articles consisting of either accurate or inaccurate information regarding childhood vaccines. They completed a Childhood Vaccines Belief Inventory (CVBI) at the beginning of the study, after the study tasks, and a 2-day delay. The study tasks consisted of reading up to eight articles and thinking-aloud while reading the articles.

5. Results. There was a trend toward acquiring misinformation such that the misinformation scores were higher after reading text number four. The qualitative analysis suggest that those protected from misinformation both recognized and explained why it was incorrect. Participants who acquired misinformation also recognized it was incorrect, but they either engaged in passive processing of the information or explained why the information might be correct.

6. Significance. This study contributes to a theoretical growing body of research on processing information and the psychological response to misinformation, including how to better equip the general public against misinformation (Britt, et al., 2019; Rapp & Salovich, 2018). The study also illustrates the value of using CR to study misinformation in the context of MD tasks.

Authors

• Virginia Troemel, Georgia State University
  Presenting Author

• Erica Kessler, University of Memphis
  Non-Presenting Author

• Jason Braasch, Georgia State University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Joseph Magliano, Georgia State University
  Non-Presenting Author