For Me or for Them: How In-Group Identification and Beliefs Influence the Comprehension of Controversial Texts

Autor/inn/en	Maier, Johanna; Richter, Tobias; Nauroth, Peter; Gollwitzer, Mario
Titel	For Me or for Them: How In-Group Identification and Beliefs Influence the Comprehension of Controversial Texts
Quelle	In: Journal of Research in Reading, 41 (2018), (18 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Maier, Johanna) ORCID (Richter, Tobias)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0141-0423
DOI	10.1111/1467-9817.12132
Schlagwörter	Reading Comprehension; Student Attitudes; Identification; Psychology; College Students; Specialization; Psychiatry; Cognitive Restructuring; Behavior Modification; Therapy; Peer Groups; Social Influences; Social Sciences; Controversial Issues (Course Content); Psychological Patterns; Memory + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Leseverstehen; Schülerverhalten; Identifikation; Identifizierung; Psychologie; Collegestudent; Arbeitsteilige Spezialisierung; Psychiatrie; Behaviour modification; Verhaltensänderung; Therapie; Gleichaltrigengruppe; Peer Group; Sozialer Einfluss; Social science; Sozialwissenschaften; Gesellschaftswissenschaften; Controversial issues; Kontroverse; Gedächtnis
Abstract	This study investigated the impact of readers' prior beliefs and level of in-group identification on the comprehension of controversial texts. Psychology students from a university that is known for its specialisation on psychoanalysis in clinical psychology read two controversial texts on the issue of whether cognitive behavioural therapy or psychoanalysis is more effective. Participants' beliefs and their in-group identification were assessed before reading and comprehension was assessed with a verification task. Results revealed a better comprehension of the belief-consistent text for high identifiers -- regardless of whether this text was socially affirming or socially threatening. Low identifiers favouring psychoanalysis exhibited weak situation models for both texts, whereas a stronger comprehension for the social-affirming text was found for low identifiers favouring cognitive behavioural therapy. These results suggest that readers' beliefs and their level of in-group identification with a relevant social group are both sources for a biased comprehension of social scientific issues. Highlights What is already known about this topic when confronted with conflicting information, readers have a weaker memory for belief-inconsistent compared with belief-consistent information (belief-consistency effect).A defensive mechanism used by readers to avoid and reduce inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance is selective exposure, which can occur on the personal level (i.e., avoiding belief-inconsistent information) and also on the social level (i.e., avoiding socially threatening information). (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01