Abstract
Research has shown that many individuals do not routinely evaluate new information for consistency with respect to what they already know. One factor that may affect the likelihood of critical evaluation is whether or not the information is the central focus of the message. Two experiments tested this possibility by establishing differential emphasis of false information within complex sentences. Half of the target sentences contained a false fact in the main clause and half contained a false fact in the subordinate clause. In Experiment 1 subjects verified 64 sentences presented orally as either true or false. In Experiment 2 subjects read and evaluated 20 paragraphs for the presence of false information. As expected, subjects were less likely to report the false information when it was conveyed as logically subordinate rather than central. The results suggest one explanation for deficits in comprehension monitoring and have implications for understanding susceptibility to persuasive communications.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, R. C., &Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp 255–291). New York. Longman.
Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for evaluating comprehension. Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type of standard.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,38, 289–311.
Baker, L. (1985a). Differences in the standards used by college students for evaluating their comprehension of expository prose.Reading Research Quarterly,20, 297–313.
Baker, L. (1985b). How do we know when we don’t understand? Standards for evaluating text comprehension. In D. L. Forrest-Pressley, G. E. MacKinnon, & T. G, Waller (Eds.),Metacognition, cognition, and human performance (Vol. l, pp. 155–205). New York: Academic Press.
Baker, L., &Anderson, R. I. (1982). Effects of inconsistent information on text processing: Evidence for comprehension monitoring.Reading Research Quarterly,17, 281–294.
Baker, L., &Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading In P. D. Pearson (Ed.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 353–394) New York: Longman.
Bransford, J. D., Stein, B. S., Nye, N. J, Franks, J. F., Auble, P. M., Mezynski, K. J., &Perfetto, G. A. (1982). Differences in approaches to learing. An overview.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,3, 390–398.
Campbell, P. N. (1972).Rhetoric: A study of the communicative and aesthetical dimensions of language. Belmont, CA: Dickenson.
Epstein, W., Glenberg, A. M., &Bradley, M. M. (1984). Coactivation and compreheasion: Contribution of text variables to the allusion of knowing.Memory & Cognition,12, 355–360.
Erickson, T. D., &Mattson, M. E. (1981). From words to meaning: A semantic illusion.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,20, 540–551.
Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., &Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing. Failure in the self-assessment of comprehensionMemory & Cognition,10, 597–602.
Goodman, K. S. (1976). Behind the eye: What happens m reading. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 470–496) Newark. DE International Reading Association.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitive and theme m English (Part 2).Journal of Linguistics,3, 177–274
Hornby, P. A. (1974). Surface structure and presupposition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,13, 530–538.
Hutchinson, L. (1971) Presupposition and belief-inferences. InPapers from the Seventh Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp 134–141). Chicago Chicago Linguistic Society.
Loftus, E. F, &Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony. The fluence of the wording of a question.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,5, 86–88
Pace, A. (1980, April).Further explorations of young children’s senst-tivity to world-knowledge-story information discrepancies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southeastern Conference on Human Development, Alexandria, VA.
Potts, G. R, Keller, R. A., &Rooley, C.I (1981) Factors affectmg the use of world knowledge to complete a linear ordering.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,7, 254–268.
Potts, G. R., &Peterson, S. B. (1985) Incorporation versus compartmentalization in memory for discourse.Journal of Memory & Language,24, 107–118.
Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes m paragraph reading.Journal of Educational Psychology,8, 323–332.
Tikhomirov, O. K., &Klochko, V. E. (1981). The detection of a contradiction as the initial stage of problem formation. In J. Wertsch (Ed.),The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 341–382). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Vivian, C. H., &Jackson, B. M. (1961).English composition. New York: Barnes & Noble.
Wolf, W. (1967). Teaching critical reading through logic. In M. L. King, B. D. Elhnger, & W. Wolf (Eds.),Critical reading (pp. 214–224). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baker, L., Wagner, J.L. Evaluating information for truthfulness: The effects of logical subordination. Memory & Cognition 15, 247–255 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197723
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197723