冲突文献综合表征中的信念偏差：嵌入来源和正当性信念的调节作用

IF 4.7 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2025-06-24 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102171

Mohammad N. Karimi , Tobias Richter

{"title":"冲突文献综合表征中的信念偏差：嵌入来源和正当性信念的调节作用","authors":"Mohammad N. Karimi , Tobias Richter","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Given the documented biasing effect of prior beliefs on the mental representations of controversial information (text-belief consistency effect), it is important to identify conditions that reduce this effect.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>In this study, we investigated whether readers' prior beliefs bias their situation models of conflicting information as measured through an integrated argumentation task. Based on the literature on sourcing and the Two-Step Model of Validation, we also examined whether embedded citation style (whether and how embedded sources are incorporated in documents) and beliefs regarding justification for knowing by authority reduce belief biases in readers’ situation models.</div></div><div><h3>Sample and method</h3><div>The study was based on 2 (text stance: Pro-Stance vs. Contra-Stance; varied within-subjects) × 3 (embedded citation style: Author-Prominent vs. Information-Prominent vs. Author-Absent; varied between-subjects) a mixed design. The participants included English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students (<em>N</em> = 92).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Consistent with previous evidence, readers' situation models were biased towards their beliefs. Furthermore, embedded sources moderated prior beliefs effects on the integrated cognitive representations of the information. Participants constructed more balanced mental representations of documents that included author-prominent followed by information-prominent embedded sources. Beliefs about justification for knowing by authority were also found to interact with readers’ prior beliefs and embedded citation style to moderate belief biases in reading controversial information.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These results support the assumption of the Two-Step Model of Validation that source information and knowledge beliefs may be crucial for whether readers engage in elaborative processes that lead to a more balanced representation of controversial information.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 102171"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Belief biases in integrated representations of conflicting documents: Moderating effects of embedded sources and justification beliefs\",\"authors\":\"Mohammad N. Karimi , Tobias Richter\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Given the documented biasing effect of prior beliefs on the mental representations of controversial information (text-belief consistency effect), it is important to identify conditions that reduce this effect.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>In this study, we investigated whether readers' prior beliefs bias their situation models of conflicting information as measured through an integrated argumentation task. Based on the literature on sourcing and the Two-Step Model of Validation, we also examined whether embedded citation style (whether and how embedded sources are incorporated in documents) and beliefs regarding justification for knowing by authority reduce belief biases in readers’ situation models.</div></div><div><h3>Sample and method</h3><div>The study was based on 2 (text stance: Pro-Stance vs. Contra-Stance; varied within-subjects) × 3 (embedded citation style: Author-Prominent vs. Information-Prominent vs. Author-Absent; varied between-subjects) a mixed design. The participants included English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students (<em>N</em> = 92).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Consistent with previous evidence, readers' situation models were biased towards their beliefs. Furthermore, embedded sources moderated prior beliefs effects on the integrated cognitive representations of the information. Participants constructed more balanced mental representations of documents that included author-prominent followed by information-prominent embedded sources. Beliefs about justification for knowing by authority were also found to interact with readers’ prior beliefs and embedded citation style to moderate belief biases in reading controversial information.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>These results support the assumption of the Two-Step Model of Validation that source information and knowledge beliefs may be crucial for whether readers engage in elaborative processes that lead to a more balanced representation of controversial information.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102171\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Learning and Instruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475225000957\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475225000957","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于有文献记载的先验信念对有争议信息的心理表征的偏见效应（文本信念一致性效应），确定减少这种影响的条件是很重要的。目的本研究通过综合论证任务考察了读者的先验信念是否会对他们的冲突信息情境模型产生偏差。基于文献来源和两步验证模型，我们还研究了嵌入式引用风格（是否以及如何将嵌入式来源纳入文档）和关于权威证明的信念是否会减少读者情境模型中的信念偏差。样本与方法本研究基于2(文本立场：前立场与反立场；× 3(嵌入引文风格：作者突出vs.信息突出vs.作者缺失；不同研究对象之间的变化)混合设计。参与者包括以英语为外语的学生（N = 92）。结果与之前的证据一致，读者的情境模型偏向于他们的信念。此外，嵌入信息源调节了先验信念对信息综合认知表征的影响。参与者构建了更平衡的心理表征文件，包括作者突出，其次是信息突出的嵌入式来源。权威证明的信念还与读者的先验信念和嵌入的引文风格相互作用，以缓和阅读争议信息时的信念偏差。这些结果支持两步验证模型的假设，即来源信息和知识信念可能对读者是否参与导致有争议信息更平衡的表达的详细过程至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Belief biases in integrated representations of conflicting documents: Moderating effects of embedded sources and justification beliefs

Background

Given the documented biasing effect of prior beliefs on the mental representations of controversial information (text-belief consistency effect), it is important to identify conditions that reduce this effect.

Aims

In this study, we investigated whether readers' prior beliefs bias their situation models of conflicting information as measured through an integrated argumentation task. Based on the literature on sourcing and the Two-Step Model of Validation, we also examined whether embedded citation style (whether and how embedded sources are incorporated in documents) and beliefs regarding justification for knowing by authority reduce belief biases in readers’ situation models.

Sample and method

The study was based on 2 (text stance: Pro-Stance vs. Contra-Stance; varied within-subjects) × 3 (embedded citation style: Author-Prominent vs. Information-Prominent vs. Author-Absent; varied between-subjects) a mixed design. The participants included English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students (N = 92).

Results

Consistent with previous evidence, readers' situation models were biased towards their beliefs. Furthermore, embedded sources moderated prior beliefs effects on the integrated cognitive representations of the information. Participants constructed more balanced mental representations of documents that included author-prominent followed by information-prominent embedded sources. Beliefs about justification for knowing by authority were also found to interact with readers’ prior beliefs and embedded citation style to moderate belief biases in reading controversial information.

Conclusions

These results support the assumption of the Two-Step Model of Validation that source information and knowledge beliefs may be crucial for whether readers engage in elaborative processes that lead to a more balanced representation of controversial information.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Learning and Instruction Multiple-

CiteScore

11.30

自引率

4.80%

发文量

109

期刊介绍： As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.