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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Students made significantly more opinion statements supporting the other-side when reading the other-side text (n = 16) than the own-side text (n = 4). → Iordanou 2025
Evidence¶
Iordanou 2025¶
Iordanou, K., Fotiou, C., Manoli, A., & Zembylas, M. (2025). Examining myside bias on a controversial historical event after engagement in dialogic argumentation: Insights from a think aloud study. Learning and Instruction. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102209
q3 · i? · causal · r1
Think-aloud study of 30 Greek-Cypriot 6th graders reading authentic own-side and other-side accounts of the 1974 war; opinion statements were coded from think-aloud protocols. The study found "a difference that was statistically significant" in other-side support across texts, with no notable change over time.
"Statements supporting the “other-side” were more prevalent when reading the “other-side” text (n = 16), compared to the “own-side” text (n = 4), a difference that was statistically significant. There was no notable change over time."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- After the intervention, some students shifted from one-sided to two-sided reasoning: comments against their own side doubled and own-side support halved when reading the other-side text — related
- 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 — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
more-other-side-support-reading-other-side-text |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2025 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — iordanou-2025 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.