This study examined the role of source credibility in the validation of factual information embedded in short narratives. In a self-paced reading experiment, we tested the assumption that the degree of (im-)plausibility determines the extent that source credibility affects validation during comprehension. We used reading times of target and…

Readers confronted with unfamiliar and controversial scientific debates tend to rely on simple heuristics such as the perceived plausibility to focus their cognitive resources on specific information during comprehension. In the present experiment, we tested the assumption that plausibility judgments as an integral part of comprehension are used…

Background: The evaluation of informal arguments is a key component of comprehending scientific texts and scientific literacy. Aim: The present study examined the nomological network of university students' ability to evaluate informal arguments in scientific texts and the relevance of this ability for academic success. Sample: A sample of 225…

Whether information is routinely and nonstrategically evaluated for truth during comprehension is still a point of contention. Previous studies supporting the assumption of nonstrategic validation have used a Stroop-like paradigm in which participants provided yes/no judgments in tasks unrelated to the truth or plausibility of the experimental…