@phdthesis{Wertgen2022,
  author    = {Wertgen, Andreas Gabriel},
  title     = {The Role of Source Credibility in the Validation of Text Information},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-28861},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-288619},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Numerous experiments have shown that an evaluative and passive process, known as validation, accompanies activation and integration, which are fundamental processes of text comprehension. During the construction of a mental model, validation implicitly assesses the plausibility of incoming information by checking its consistency with world knowledge, prior beliefs, and contextual information (e.g., the broader discourse context). However, research on potential influences that shape validation processes has just started. One branch of research is investigating how world knowledge and contextual information contribute to integration and validation. World knowledge usually influences validation more strongly because information plausibility is the primary criterion for validation, but strong contextual information can yield influences as well. Contextual information that may be specifically relevant for routine validation is the credibility of a source providing text information. Source credibility bears a strong conceptual relationship to the validity of information. However, a dearth of research has investigated joint effects of plausibility and source credibility for routine validation. To fill this research gap, the aim of the present dissertation was to examine the role of source credibility in routine validation processes of text information. This dissertation argues that both source credibility and plausibility are considered in these processes. In particular, information plausibility is proposed as the primary criterion, but source credibility may modulate validation as an additional criterion. To this end, three studies with five self-paced reading experiments were conducted in which reading times served as an implicit indicator of validation and plausibility judgments as an explicit indicator, and the convergence or divergence between the two indicators was interpreted. The first study examined the interplay of plausibility and source credibility for the validation of world-knowledge consistent versus inconsistent text information embedded in short narratives. This highly plausible or highly implausible information was provided by a high- or low-expertise source. In Study 1, plausibility dominated validation as suggested by faster reading times and higher plausibility judgments for world-knowledge consistent information. Importantly, source credibility modulated the validation of highly implausible information but seemed to not matter for plausible information. High-credible sources increased the implausibility of highly implausible information to a greater extent compared with low-credible sources as indicated by longer reading times and lower plausibility judgments. These results diverged from recent findings from Foy et al. (2017). The second study investigated whether the modulating role of source credibility depends on the degree of implausibility of an information. Thus, Study 2 extended Study 1 by an intermediate, somewhat implausible level of plausibility (comparable to the implausible claims in Foy et al., 2017). Similar to Study 1, plausibility dominated validation as indicated by lower reading times and plausibility judgments with higher world-knowledge inconsistency. Again, source credibility had no effect on the routine validation of plausible information. However, high-credible sources mitigated the implausibility of somewhat implausible information as indicated by faster reading times and higher plausibility judgments but exacerbated the implausibility of highly implausible information as indicated by slower reading times and lower plausibility judgments. In short, Study 2 findings not only integrates the seemingly divergent results of Study 1 and Foy et al. (2017) but also provides strong support for the assumption that the degree of implausibility determines the modulating role of source credibility for validation. The third study examined the relationship of source credibility and plausibility in an ecologically valid social media setting with short Twitter messages varying in world-knowledge and text-belief consistency by trustworthy and untrustworthy sources. In sum, plausibility and to a lesser extent source credibility mattered for routine validation and explicit evaluation of text information as indicated by reading times and plausibility judgments. However, the pattern partly diverged from Study 1 and 2, possibly because the source information was more salient. In sum, the present dissertation yielded three insights. First, the findings further extends evidence for routine validation based on world-knowledge and prior beliefs. Second, the studies suggest that source credibility can modulate validation. Readers used source credibility cues for routine validation and the explicit evaluation of text information in all studies. Third, the impact of source credibility seems to depend on the degree of implausibility of information. The present findings have theoretical implications for theories of validation and text comprehension as well as practical implications for targeting threats associated with the prevalence of inaccurate information, for example, on the World Wide Web. Future research using eye-tracking methodology could further disentangle the routine and strategic underlying processes of the relationship between source credibility and plausibility.},
  subject      = {Textverstehen},
  language  = {en}
}