TY - JOUR
T1 - Exploring the effect of task instructions on topic beliefs and topic belief justifications
T2 - A mixed methods study
AU - McCrudden, Matthew T.
AU - Sparks, Phillip C.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2013 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions that asked adolescents to evaluate the merit of both sides of a controversial issue would affect their topic beliefs and topic belief justifications after they read belief-consistent and belief-inconsistent information. In the quantitative phase, we conducted an experiment in which high school students (n= 45) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and received their respective pre-reading task instructions. Quantitative analyses showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and belief justifications. However, inspection of topic belief scores within each condition indicated that some individuals' beliefs became weaker, whereas others' became stronger. In the qualitative phase, we conducted interviews to explain why this occurred. The interview data revealed two distinct reader profiles: belief-reflection and belief-protection. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated group differences in topic beliefs and belief justifications, and the qualitative data allowed us to explain differences within and across groups.
AB - The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions that asked adolescents to evaluate the merit of both sides of a controversial issue would affect their topic beliefs and topic belief justifications after they read belief-consistent and belief-inconsistent information. In the quantitative phase, we conducted an experiment in which high school students (n= 45) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions and received their respective pre-reading task instructions. Quantitative analyses showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and belief justifications. However, inspection of topic belief scores within each condition indicated that some individuals' beliefs became weaker, whereas others' became stronger. In the qualitative phase, we conducted interviews to explain why this occurred. The interview data revealed two distinct reader profiles: belief-reflection and belief-protection. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated group differences in topic beliefs and belief justifications, and the qualitative data allowed us to explain differences within and across groups.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84887381180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84887381180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001
DO - 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.10.001
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84887381180
SN - 0361-476X
VL - 39
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - Contemporary Educational Psychology
JF - Contemporary Educational Psychology
IS - 1
ER -