Processing and Representation of Arguments in One-Sided Texts About Disputed Topics

Abstract

We examine students' processing and representation of arguments and counterarguments in one-sided scientific texts. In Experiment 1, students read texts about evolution and TV violence. Sentence reading times indicated that subjects slowed down reading to the extent that arguments were both more consistent, and inconsistent, with the text position. We refer to this processing pattern as argument-focused processing. We also examined whether students hold their beliefs for evidence- or affect-based reasons (belief basis). For the evolution texts, belief basis moderated argument-focused processing. In Experiment 2, subjects read a one-sided text, then a neutral text, and then wrote a summary of the neutral text. Compared to affect-based subjects, evidence-based subjects wrote summaries that were more neutral. Beliefs predicted few differences in processing or representation. We conclude that subjects engage in argument-focused processing when reading one-sided scientific texts. We tentatively conclude that argument-focused processing is moderated by belief basis, but not subject beliefs.

Acknowledgments

We thank Jill Hinton for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Notes

¹ We consider the terms position inconsistent and counterargument to mean the same thing. We use position inconsistent throughout the manuscript to facilitate the contrast with belief inconsistent sentences and texts.

² A pilot study was conducted to ensure students understood that for each topic, the Yes texts support the positions and the No texts refute the positions. The texts were printed without titles. Thirty-six subjects read one evolution and one TV violence text, with the texts counterbalanced in terms of topic and order such that 18 subjects read and rated each text. Subjects were instructed to read the texts carefully for comprehension and that they would answer a question after reading. After reading, subjects responded to one question about the extent to which the text supported the proposition. Subjects responded on a 9-point scale (1 = “Completely refute (go against) the claim,” 5 = “Neither support nor refute the claim,” and 9 = “Completely support the claim”). The Evolution Yes text was rated as more supportive, M = 7.06, SD = 1.98, than the Evolution No text, M = 3.00, SD = 1.88, F(1, 34) = 39.65, p < .0001, η _p ² = .54. The TV Yes text was also rated as more supportive, M = 7.28, SD = 1.67, than the TV No text, M = 2.17, SD = 1.43, F(1, 34) = 97.35, p < .0001, η _p ² = .74.