Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article
Originalarbeit

Verstehen kontroverser wissenschaftlicher Themen

Probleme, zugrundeliegende kognitive Prozesse und psychologische Interventionen

Published Online:July 11, 2018https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042/a000371

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Wenn Rezipient_innen sich z. B. im Internet zu einem öffentlich diskutierten wissenschaftlichen Thema informieren, lesen sie meist mehrere Texte, die widersprüchliche empirische Evidenz oder konkurrierende Annahmen enthalten können. Zugleich verfügen sie in der Regel über inhaltliche (Vor–)‌Überzeugungen, die die Verarbeitung der gelesenen Informationen beeinflussen können. Diese Bedingungen können (1) zu verzerrten Bewertungen wissenschaftlicher Argumente führen, erschweren (2) den Aufbau einer ausgewogenen und angemessenen Repräsentation wissenschaftlicher Sachverhalte und begünstigen (3) die Entstehung und Aufrechterhaltung fehlerhafter und einseitiger Vorstellungen. In unserem Beitrag illustrieren wir diese Probleme mit empirischen Beispielen und beschreiben die selektive Aktivierung von Gedächtnisinhalten und die automatische Validierung von Textinhalten als kognitive Mechanismen, die allen drei Problemen zugrunde liegen. Abschließend diskutieren wir, wie Trainings und eine entsprechende Gestaltung der Wissenschaftskommunikation Rezipient_innen dabei unterstützen können, ein adäquates und ausgewogenes Verständnis wissenschaftlicher Informationen zu erzielen.


Comprehension of Controversial Scientific Themes: Problems, Underlying Cognititves Processes and Psychological Interventions

Abstract. People interested in publically debated scientific issues are often confronted with multiple texts that provide contrary empirical evidence and that take opposed argumentative stances. Such readers often possess only low prior knowledge but tend to have strong prior beliefs that influence the processing of new information. These circumstances may (1) lead to a biased evaluation of scientific arguments, (2) hamper the construction of a balanced and rich mental representation of the scientific discourse and (3) promote the construction and maintenance of flawed and one-sided mental representations. We will illustrate these problems of science communication with examples of empirical evidence. Afterwards, we will discuss two types of cognitive processes that might contribute to these problems: selective activation of information from memory and an automatic validation of text contents. We will then describe how recipients might be assisted in gaining a successful and balanced understanding of controversial science texts by training aspects of scientific literacy and by communicating scientific information effectively.

Literatur

  • Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R. & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037 – 1049. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Appel, M. & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10, 113 – 134. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Appel, M. & Schreiner, C. (2014). Digitale Demenz? Mythen und wissenschaftliche Befundlage zur Auswirkung von Internetnutzung. Psychologische Rundschau, 65, 1 – 10. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Blair, J. A. & Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41 – 56. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. (2003). Construction of argument representations during on-line reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 749 – 810. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Britt, M. A., Perfetti, C. A., Sandak, R. & Rouet, J. F. (1999). Content integration and source separation in learning from multiple texts. In S. R. Goldman, A. C. Graesser & P. van den Broek (Eds.). Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 209 – 233). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Britt, M. A., Richter, T. & Rouet, J.-F. (2014). Scientific Literacy: The role of goal-directed reading and evaluation in understanding scientific information. Educational Psychologist, 49, 104 – 122. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Broek, P. van den & Kendeou, P. (2008). Cognitive processes in comprehension of science texts: The role of co-activation in confronting misconceptions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 335 – 351. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bromme, R. & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40, 241 – 252. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Three types of conceptual change: Belief revision, mental model transformation, and categorical shifts. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). Handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 61 – 82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Connell, L. & Keane, M. T. (2006). A model of plausibility. Cognitive Science, 30, 95 – 120. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ecker, U. K. H., Swire, B. & Lewandowsky, S. (2014). Correcting misinformation: A challenge for education and cognitive science. In Rapp, D. N.Braasch, J. L. G. (Eds.). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 13 – 18). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ferretti, T. R., Singer, M. & Patterson, C. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence for the timecourse of verifying text ideas. Cognition, 108, 881 – 888. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gore, A. (2011). 10 common misconceptions about climate change [Online document]. Retrieved on February 13, 2016, from http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/10-global-warming-misconceptions First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15 – 22. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2014). Comprehension and validation: Separable stages of information processing? A case for epistemic monitoring in language comprehension. In Rapp, D. N.Braasch, J. (Eds.). Processing inaccurate information: Theoretical and applied perspectives from cognitive science and the educational sciences (pp. 245 – 276). Boston, MA: MIT Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Johnson, H. M. & Seifert, C. M. (1994). Sources of the continued influence effect: When discredited information in memory affects later inferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 1420 – 1436. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163 – 182. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Larson, A., Britt, M. A. & Kurby, C. (2010). Students’ evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77, 339 – 366. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Larson, M., Britt, M. A. & Larson, A. (2004). Disfluencies in comprehending argumentative texts. Reading Psychology, 25, 205 – 224. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students’ climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50 – 62. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lord, C. G., Ross, L. & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098 – 2109. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013a). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151 – 175. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2013b). How nonexperts understand conflicting information on social science issues: The role of perceived plausibility and reading goals. Journal of Media Psychology, 25, 14 – 26. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Maier, J. & Richter, T. (2014). Training multiple text comprehension: How metacognitive strategies and motivation moderate the text-belief consistency effect. Metacognition and Learning, 9, 54 – 71. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Matsuki, K., Chow, T., Hare, M., Elman, J. L., Scheepers, C. & McRae, K. (2011). Event-based plausibility immediately influences on-line language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 913 – 934. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mühlen, S. von der, Richter, T., Schmid, S., Berthold, K. & Schmidt, L. M. (2016). The use of source-related strategies in evaluating multiple psychology texts: A student-scientist comparison. Reading and Writing, 8, 1677 – 1698. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mühlen, S. von der, Richter, T., Schmid, S., Schmidt, L.M. & Berthold, K. (2016). Judging the plausibility of argumentative statements in scientific texts: A student-scientist comparison. Thinking and Reasoning 22,, 221 – 246. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Brien, E., Cook, A. & Lorch, R. (Eds.). (2015). Inferences during reading. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Brien, E. J., Rizzella, M. L., Albrecht, J. E. & Halleran, J. G. (1998). Updating a situation model: A memory-based text processing view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1200 – 1210. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • O’Brien, E. & Myers, J. (1987). The role of causal connections in the retrieval of text. Memory & Cognition, 15, 419 – 427. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Perfetti, C. A., Rouet, J.-F. & Britt, M. A. (1999). Toward a theory of documents representation. In van Oostendorp, H.Goldman, S. R. (Eds.). The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 99 – 122). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Richter, T. (2015). Comprehension and validation of text information: Two sides of the same coin. Discourse Processes, 52, 337 – 352. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Richter, T. & Maier, J. (2016). Plausibility effects in the comprehension of controversial science texts. Manuscript in preparation. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Richter, T., Schroeder, S. & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538 – 558. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Richter, T. & Singer, M. (in Druck). Discourse updating: Acquiring and revising knowledge through discourse. In Rap, D.Britt, M. A.Schober, M. (Eds.). Handbook of discourse processes (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rips, L. J. (1983). Cognitive processes in prepositional reasoning. Psychological Review, 90, 38 – 71. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rouet, J. & Britt, M. A. (2011). Relevance processes in multiple document comprehension. In McCrudde, M. T.Magliano, J. P.Schraw, G. (Eds.). Text relevance and learning from text (pp. 19 – 52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513 – 536. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2012). Beyond one’s own understanding: How text comprehensibility affects laypeople’s decision about scientific claims. In Miyak, N.Peebles, D.Cooper, R. P. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 965 – 970). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A. & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231 – 243. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schmalhofer, F. & Glavanov, D. (1986). Three components of understanding a programmer’s manual: Verbatim, propositional, and situational representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 279 – 294. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schreiner, C., Appel, M., Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (in Druck). Argument strength and the persuasiveness of stories. Discourse Processes. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Schroeder, S., Richter, T. & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237 – 259. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332 – 348. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shaw, F. W. (1996). The cognitive processes in informal reasoning. Thinking and Reasoning, 2, 51 – 80. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Singer, M. (2006). Verification of text ideas during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 574 – 591. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Singer, M. (2013). Validation in reading comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 361 – 366. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stadtler, M., Winter, S., Scharrer, L., Thomm, E., Krämer, N. & Bromme, R. (in Druck). Selektion, Integration und Evaluation: Wie wir das Internet nutzen, wenn wir uns über Wissenschaft informieren wollen. Psychologische Rundschau. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stanovich, K. E. (2012). How to think straight about psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tippett, C. D. (2010). Refutation text in science education: A review of two decades of research. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 9513 – 970. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vosniadou, S. (Ed.). (2013). International handbook of research on conceptual change (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Voss, J. F., Fincher-Kiefer, R., Wiley, J. & Silfies, L. N. (1993). On the processing of arguments. Argumentation, 7, 165 – 181. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wakefield, A., Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D. M. & Malik, M., et al. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children [retracted article]. Lancet, 351, 637 – 641. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wiley, J. (2005). A fair and balanced look at the news: What affects memory for controversial arguments? Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 95 – 109. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wilkes, A. L. & Leatherbarrow, M. (1988). Editing episodic memory following the identification of error. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40 A, 361 – 387. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wyer, R. S. & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social information. Psychological Review, 106, 89 – 118. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar