Cognitive processes underlying the text‐belief consistency effect: An eye‐movement study

Abstract

SummaryReaders' memory for belief‐consistent texts is often stronger than for belief‐inconsistent texts (text‐belief consistency effect). However, presenting belief‐consistent and belief‐inconsistent texts alternatingly reduces the discrepancy between the memory strengths of belief‐consistent and belief‐inconsistent texts. The present study used eye tracking to examine the cognitive processes underlying the text‐belief consistency effect and how it is moderated by the mode of presentation. At 2 points of measurement, 41 university students read 2 belief‐consistent and 2 belief‐inconsistent texts on 2 scientific issues blocked or alternatingly. Comprehension outcomes were assessed with an essay task. First‐pass rereading times were longer for belief‐inconsistent information for participants with strong beliefs. A blocked presentation increased this effect and yielded longer first‐pass rereading times for belief‐inconsistent claims and a text‐belief consistency effect in the essay task. An alternating presentation increased immediate and delayed processing of belief‐inconsistent information and reduced the text‐belief consistency effect, especially in readers making more lookbacks.

For me or for them: how in‐group identification and beliefs influence the comprehension of controversial texts

“…A specific form of selective exposure seems to occur not only when readers decide which text they should read but also during processing and comprehension of texts that communicate belief‐relevant information. Using eye tracking to investigate the processing of belief‐relevant controversial texts, Maier, Richter and Britt () found that readers notice the belief consistency of an argument during initial reading (as indicated by longer first‐pass rereading times for belief‐inconsistent sentences). Still, readers often do not invest the necessary effort to strategically resolve the inconsistencies but avoid information processing that might challenge a reader's point of view (such strategic processing would be indicated, e.g., by more and longer look‐backs to previous text regions).…”

“…Accordingly, the belief‐consistency effect for high identifiers holding pro‐PA beliefs likely results from a cognitive dissonance experience at the level of the individual and social self. As suggested by research on selective exposure, belief‐inconsistent information can trigger a defensive motivation mechanism (Festinger, ) during which strategic processing of belief‐inconsistent information is avoided (Maier et al, ). This effect is further pronounced, because the processing of socially threatening information also elicits a defence motivation process (de Hoog, ).…”

“…This type of processing can be viewed as a belief‐protection mechanism (McCrudden & Sparks, ). It is important to note that in the eye‐tracking study by Maier et al (), fewer look‐backs to previous text regions after reading belief‐inconsistent information were associated with one‐sided comprehension, that is, a good mental model for belief‐consistent arguments but a weak mental model for belief‐inconsistent arguments.…”

Examining my-side bias during and after reading controversial historical accounts

“…These egocentric biases in thinking in favor of one's self and own position are independent of individuals' cognitive ability (Stanovich and West 2008) and are stronger when participants have high emotional conviction on the issue. Participants with high emotional investment on a topic rate opposing arguments as weaker than do participants with low emotional investment on the issue, known as the disconfirmation bias (Edwards and Smith 1996), and engage in different cognitive processing (Maier et al 2018a). For example, research findings show that readers spend longer time reading belief-inconsistent information, probably because a defensive mechanism is triggered and they need time to consider how to counterargue the beliefinconsistent information (Edwards and Smith 1996).…”

“…For example, research findings show that readers spend longer time reading belief-inconsistent information, probably because a defensive mechanism is triggered and they need time to consider how to counterargue the beliefinconsistent information (Edwards and Smith 1996). Eye tracking data show that readers with strong beliefs although spend more time during initial reading for inconsistent information, noticing the belief inconsistency, they ignore the inconsistent information during information processing (Maier et al 2018a). Presumably, readers try to protect their beliefs by either ignoring or devaluating belief-inconsistent information.…”