Cognitive processing differs by text type: participants engaged in more epistemic processing, meta-comprehension, and coherence-based processing when reading the other-side text than the own-side text¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (3 entries) · causal r1 · q2 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i3 A repeated measures MANOVA showed text type significantly affected combined dependent variables, F(4, 34) = 18.404, p < .001, partial η2 = .684. → Iordanou 2020 q2 i3 Participants engaged in significantly more low epistemic processing when reading the other-side text (M = .22) than the own-side text (M = .003), F(1, 37) = 54.471, p < .001, partial η2 = .596. → Iordanou 2020 (2) q2 i3 Participants engaged in less coherence-based processing when reading the own-side text (M = .55) than the other-side text (M = .71), F(1, 37) = 35.026, p < .001, partial η2 = .486. → Iordanou 2020 (3)

Evidence¶

Iordanou 2020¶

Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Zembylas, M. (2020). Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09240-w

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Repeated measures MANOVA on four dependent variables (coherence, non-coherence, meta-comprehension, epistemic statements) during think-aloud reading of own-side and other-side texts. The omnibus test showed "the combined DVs were significantly affected by the text type" with partial η2 = .684.

"With the Pillai's Trace criterion, the combined DVs were significantly affected by the text type, F(4, 34) = 18.404, p < .001, partial η2 = .684."

Iordanou 2020 (2)¶

Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Zembylas, M. (2020). Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09240-w

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Think-aloud protocols coded for epistemic processing showed a significant text type difference, F(1, 37) = 54.471, p < .001, partial η2 = .596. Participants produced low epistemic statements (unjustified disagreement) mainly when reading the other-side text.

"Although a quarter of the statements reported when reading the other-side text were low epistemic statements, M =. 2 2( SD =. 1 6 ) , when reading the own-side text participants engaged in almost no epistemic processing, M =. 0 0 3(SD = .02)."

Iordanou 2020 (3)¶

Iordanou, K., Kendeou, P., & Zembylas, M. (2020). Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts. Metacognition and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09240-w

q2 · i3 · causal · r1

Think-aloud coding showed significant text type differences in coherence statements, F(1, 37) = 35.026, p < .001, partial η2 = .486. Participants engaged in more coherence-based processing of the other-side text than the own-side text.

"Participants engaged in less coherence-based processing when reading the own-side text, M =. 5 5 (SD = .20), than when reading the other-side text M =. 7 1 (SD = .19)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The think-aloud emotion of sadness and prior knowledge predict coherence-based processing during reading of the other-side text — related
• Epistemic beliefs, prior knowledge, and the think-aloud emotion of anger jointly predict low-epistemic processing during reading of the other-side text — related
• Young adults exhibit my-side bias when writing summaries of contradictory historical accounts, with 72% producing one-sided reports despite explicit instructions to summarize both texts — related
• External strategy use affects comprehension of relations among controversial texts, according to the article's title statement — related
• Emotions reported during think-aloud reading were mostly negative (anger, sadness) for both texts, in contrast to positive questionnaire-reported emotions toward the other ethnic group — related
• Participants' engagement (think-aloud word counts) did not differ significantly between texts or assessment points — related
• Elementary students expressed significantly more opinion statements supporting the other-side when reading the other-side historical account than when reading their own-side account — related
• Reading the own-side account elicited more valid elaborative inferences, relevant associations, consequences-for-present statements and evaluative comments, while the other-side account elicited more invalid inferences — related