Watching an instructional video on sourcing before viewing had no significant effect on source recognition or convincingness judgments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No main effect of the instructional video on recognition scores (η²p=.001) and no association with choosing the researcher as most convincing (Cramer's V=.029). → Colin Lescarret 2022

Evidence¶

Colin Lescarret 2022¶

Colin Lescarret, Julien Magnier, Valérie Le Floch, Jean-Christophe Sakdavong, and 2 more. (2022). Do you trust this speaker? The impact of prompting on middle-school students’ consideration of source when watching conflicting videos. Preprint, Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1998147/v1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Mixed ANOVA on recognition scores in the randomized experiment: no main effect of the instructional video factor, "F(1,253)=0.499, p=.542, η²p=.001". A separate chi-square on convincingness choice also showed no association (χ²(1)=0.228, p=.633, Cramer's V=.029). No effect size beyond these statistics is printed for the null.

"There was no effect of the factor Instructional Video, F(1,253)=0.499, p=.542, η²p=.001"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Embedded source credibility rating scales during video viewing improve middle-schoolers' source identity recognition, especially at delayed posttest — related
• Embedded rating scales make middle-schoolers more likely to judge the expert (researcher) speaker as the most convincing — related
• Watching the sourcing instructional video unexpectedly lowered students' trustworthiness ratings of the interviewees — related
• Students exposed to embedded rating scales mention interviewees' expertise more often in their convincingness justifications — related
• Combining the instructional video with embedded rating scales yielded the highest immediate recognition, but the advantage faded by delayed posttest — related