Event Title
Beliefs and Comprehension: The Relationship Between Beliefs About Scientific Topics, the Reason We Hold Those Beliefs and Comprehension of Scientific Evidence
Presentation Type
Oral and/or Visual Presentation
Presenter Major(s)
Psychology, Biomedical Sciences
Mentor Information
Michael Wolfe, wolfem@gvsu.edu
Department
Psychology
Location
Kirkhof Center 2201
Start Date
13-4-2011 2:00 PM
End Date
13-4-2011 2:30 PM
Abstract
In this study we are interested if reading strategies vary depending on 1) whether students believe or disbelieve the topic of a science text, or 2) whether they hold that belief for evidence-based or affective reasons (belief basis). Subjects with prior beliefs regarding the effectiveness of spanking read a text that argued either for or against the issue and sentences were categorized as being consistent with the main position of the text, neutral, or inconsistent. Subjects performed a sentence recognition task in which half of the sentences were from the text, and the other half were not. There were no differences as a function of belief consistency. However, there were belief basis differences. Evidence based subjects, compared to affect based, had higher false alarm rates to sentences that were inconsistent with the text position. We interpret this pattern as suggesting that evidence-based subjects attempt to create a balanced understanding of the evidence being presented.
Beliefs and Comprehension: The Relationship Between Beliefs About Scientific Topics, the Reason We Hold Those Beliefs and Comprehension of Scientific Evidence
Kirkhof Center 2201
In this study we are interested if reading strategies vary depending on 1) whether students believe or disbelieve the topic of a science text, or 2) whether they hold that belief for evidence-based or affective reasons (belief basis). Subjects with prior beliefs regarding the effectiveness of spanking read a text that argued either for or against the issue and sentences were categorized as being consistent with the main position of the text, neutral, or inconsistent. Subjects performed a sentence recognition task in which half of the sentences were from the text, and the other half were not. There were no differences as a function of belief consistency. However, there were belief basis differences. Evidence based subjects, compared to affect based, had higher false alarm rates to sentences that were inconsistent with the text position. We interpret this pattern as suggesting that evidence-based subjects attempt to create a balanced understanding of the evidence being presented.