Beliefs about the Malleability of Working Memory Guide College Students’ Evaluations of Belief-Inconsistent and Belief-Consistent Journal Articles

Abstract

One-hundred and twenty-two undergraduates completed a survey assessing beliefs that WM is a stable trait, or that it is quality that can be improved with skill training. They then read an authentic set of journal articles in a special issue, which discussed whether a program called CogMed is or is not effective in promoting WM functioning. Students evaluated the usefulness of the articles for understanding the issue and justified their decisions. Students believing that WM is malleable evaluated articles questioning CogMed’s effectiveness as less useful, and one recognizing its promise as more useful. They were also less likely to question the quality of methods used in pro-CogMed articles. Students believing that WM is a fixed trait, however, evaluated belief-inconsistent articles more critically as uninteresting, task-irrelevant, having poorer-quality argumentation, and having less trustworthy authors. Limitations and future directions of the current work are discussed.

Keywords:

• Belief-consistency
• evaluation
• multiple texts

Author Contributions

The first, second, and fifth author conceptualized the project, created the materials and wrote the Method section, and advised on all sections of the manuscript. The second author conducted and wrote up the analyses. The third and fourth author collected and entered the data and coded the justifications.

Availability of Data and Material

The data that support the findings of this study will be made openly available in Mendeley. All materials are present in the supplemental materials.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained for all participants.

Consent for Publication

All authors consent to publication.

Disclosure Statement

There are no conflicts of interest.