Adjusting strategies when reading reliable and unreliable texts

Background: Effective multiple-text comprehension tasks require readers to integrate information from various sources, which often present contradictions and differing levels of reliability. Understanding how source reliability affects the use of intertextual integration strategies is crucial for comprehending conflicting information. Aims: This study aimed to investigate how the reliability of sources influences the application of intertextual integration strategies—specifically refutation, weighing, and synthesis—during the processing of conflicting information. Sample: The study involved 130 university students. Methods: Participants were tasked with processing multiple texts while their responses were analyzed for the use of intertextual integration strategies. The study manipulated the reliability of sources to observe its effect on the participants' integration strategies. Results: The findings revealed that students rarely employed weighting and refutation strategies, which hindered a comprehensive assessment of their ability to adjust these strategies based on source reliability. However, the manipulation of source reliability significantly impacted the effective use of the synthesis strategy. Prior beliefs seemed to influence the use of synthesis as an intertextual integration strategy across texts with varying levels of reliability. Additionally, participants' awareness of intertextual integration strategies was found to predict their integration capacity, regardless of the source reliability manipulation. Conclusions: The results suggest that while students may struggle with certain integration strategies, enhancing awareness of intertextual integration can improve their ability to reconcile conflicting information. Future research should further explore instructional methods to support strategy adjustment based on source reliability.