Cat Stockley

While there is some understanding behind the impact of source credibility on knowledge revision, little is known about the effects of updating source information after a refutation is given and encoded, where the discrepancy and cognitive conflict involved is the source information itself. Such an understanding is important given that sources are not stable entities but rather variable entities that change and are revised just as knowledge and facts the sources share are revised. Thus, we manipulate texts presented both as refutation texts and non-refutation texts to include either positive, negative, or no source updating after the misconception is already addressed by the source. Each source will share information about correct ideas against common misconceptions.​In summary, the current study experimentally examines the extent to which source updating (positive vs. negative vs. unknown) and text type (refutation and explanation vs. no refutation and explanation) influences participants’ belief in common misconceptions and final source credibility judgements. Therefore, for our first primary research question, we examine the extent to which readers update their initial credibility evaluations of embedded sources that address common misconceptions as a function of subsequent information about the sources that serve to increase or decrease the sources’ credibility. For our second primary research question, we examine the extent to which updating the credibility of source to either high- or low- credibility influence knowledge revision outcomes.