Kerwer Martin, Rosman Tom
Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information (ZPID), Trier, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 22;9:2278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02278. eCollection 2018.
The number of studies on how to foster change toward advanced epistemic beliefs (i.e., beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing) is continuously growing because these beliefs are an important predictor of learning outcomes. In past intervention studies, presenting diverging information (e.g., descriptions of studies yielding contradictory results) reliably led to epistemic change. However, prior research insufficiently examined which aspects of diverging information affect these changes. We investigated (1) if epistemic change differs depending on the (un)resolvability of contradictory information, (2) to what extent explicitly reflecting on diverging information supports epistemic change and (3) how topic-specific diverging information affects topic-and domain-specific epistemic beliefs. All confirmatory hypotheses were preregistered at OSF. Additionally, several exploratory analyses were conducted. To examine the research questions, we employed a simple randomized pre-post design with four experimental groups. = 185 psychology students participated in the study. Experimental groups differed in the kind of diverging information included: Students either read (1) information on students applying learning strategies (control), (2) unresolvable, or (3a) resolvable controversial information on gender stereotyping. In the latter condition (3b), an additional group of participants deliberately resolved apparent contradictions in a writing task. Confirmatory latent change analyses revealed no significant group differences in epistemic change (i.e., beliefs in the control group also changed toward advanced epistemic beliefs). Using a different methodological approach, subsequent exploratory analyses nevertheless showed that presenting diverging information on gender stereotypes produced stronger topic-specific epistemic change and change in justification beliefs in the treatment groups in contrast to the control group. However, effects in the treatment groups did not differ significantly depending on the resolvability of presented controversies or for the group which was instructed explicitly to integrate controversial findings. Contrary to our expectations, diverging information seems to foster epistemic change toward advanced beliefs regardless of the resolvability of presented information, while no final conclusion concerning effects of reflection could be drawn. Moreover, our findings indicate that effects of topic-specific interventions are more pronounced on topic-specific measures. However, this relationship may vary depending on the epistemic belief dimension (e.g., justification beliefs) under investigation.
关于如何促进向高级认知信念（即关于知识本质和认知的信念）转变的研究数量在不断增加，因为这些信念是学习成果的重要预测指标。在过去的干预研究中，呈现不同的信息（例如，对得出相互矛盾结果的研究的描述）可靠地导致了认知变化。然而，先前的研究没有充分考察不同信息的哪些方面会影响这些变化。我们调查了：（1）认知变化是否因矛盾信息的（不可）解决性而异；（2）明确思考不同信息在多大程度上支持认知变化；以及（3）特定主题的不同信息如何影响特定主题和领域的认知信念。所有验证性假设均已在开放科学框架（OSF）上预先注册。此外，还进行了几项探索性分析。为了研究这些问题，我们采用了一个简单的随机前后测设计，分为四个实验组。185名心理学专业学生参与了该研究。实验组所包含的不同信息类型不同：学生们要么阅读（1）关于学生应用学习策略的信息（对照组），（2）不可解决的，要么（3a）可解决的关于性别刻板印象的有争议信息。在后一种情况（3b）中，另一组参与者在写作任务中刻意解决了明显的矛盾。验证性潜在变化分析显示，在认知变化方面没有显著的组间差异（即对照组的信念也朝着高级认知信念转变）。然而，使用不同的方法，后续的探索性分析表明，与对照组相比，呈现关于性别刻板印象的不同信息在治疗组中产生了更强的特定主题认知变化和辩护信念变化。然而，治疗组中的效果在呈现的争议的可解决性方面或对于被明确指示整合有争议发现的组而言并无显著差异。与我们的预期相反，如果呈现的信息不可解决，不同信息似乎也会促进向高级信念的认知变化，而关于反思效果则无法得出最终结论。此外，我们的研究结果表明，特定主题干预的效果在特定主题的测量上更为明显。然而，这种关系可能因所研究的认知信念维度（例如，辩护信念）而异。
