>Background: 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.>Aims: 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.>Method: To examine the research questions, we employed a simple randomized pre-post design with four experimental groups. N = 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.>Results: 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.>Conclusion: 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.
展开▼
机译：>背景：关于如何促进向高级认知信念（即对知识和知识本质的信念）的变化的研究数量正在不断增长，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，对产生矛盾结果的研究的描述）确实导致了认知的改变。但是，先前的研究不足以检查差异信息的哪些方面会影响这些变化。>目的：我们调查了（1）认知变化是否取决于矛盾信息的（不可）分辨性而不同，（2）在多大程度上明确反映分歧的信息支持认知变化，以及（3）特定主题的差异信息如何影响特定主题和特定领域的认知信念。所有确认性假设已在OSF预先注册。此外，还进行了一些探索性分析。>方法：为了检查研究问题，我们采用了具有四个实验组的简单随机前后设计。 N = 185名心理学学生参加了该研究。实验小组在不同的信息类型上有所不同：学生或者阅读（1）有关采用学习策略（对照）的学生的信息，（2）无法解决的信息，或（3a）有关性别陈规定型观念的可解决的争议信息。在后一种情况（3b）中，另外一组参与者故意解决了写作任务中的明显矛盾。>结果：潜在的确认性变化分析表明，认知变化中没有显着的群体差异（即对控制的信念）小组也朝着先进的认知信念转变）。然而，采用另一种方法学方法，随后的探索性分析表明，与对照组相比，在治疗组中呈现有关性别刻板印象的分歧信息会产生更强的主题特定的认知变化和理由信念的变化。但是，根据提出的争议的可解决性或明确指示要整合有争议的结果的组，治疗组的疗效差异不明显。>结论：与我们的预期相反，分歧的信息似乎在促进不管所呈现的信息是否可解决，向高级信念的认知改变都没有，而关于反射作用的最终结论却无法得出。此外，我们的发现表明，针对特定主题的干预措施对特定主题的措施的影响更为明显。但是，这种关系可能取决于所调查的认知信念维度（例如，正当信念）。
展开▼
