This study further explored a novel reasoning error. When faced with evidence from multiple sources, a substantial number of lay reasoners inaccurately integrate cues of reliability and report number. Particularly when further reports are less reliable than initial (highly reliable) reports. When evaluating the added value of supplementary corroborative reports, we find that, in most instances, participants are equally likely to provide correct or incorrect qualitative judgements. When using a sequential presentation and explicitly prompting participants to consider the impact of additional credible evidence, 36.7%-45% indicate that their beliefs should remain the same and 10% or less indicate that their beliefs should decrease. Only a third correctly believed that in each instance of corroborating evidence the likelihood of the target hypothesis should increase. Qualitative judgements also significantly impacted the accuracy of belief estimates; deviations from normative, Bayesian, predictions at the group level are explained by sub-groups with incorrect qualitative intuitions.