Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions

This study examined the extent to which prior beliefs and reading instructions impacted elements of a reader's mental representation of multiple texts. College students' beliefs about childhood vaccinations were assessed before reading two anti-vaccine and two pro-vaccine texts. Participan...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Reading psychology 2023-05, Vol.44 (4), p.436-462
Hauptverfasser: Mason, Anna E., Braasch, Jason L. G., Greenberg, Daphne, Kessler, Erica D., Allen, Laura K., McNamara, Danielle S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 462
container_issue 4
container_start_page 436
container_title Reading psychology
container_volume 44
creator Mason, Anna E.
Braasch, Jason L. G.
Greenberg, Daphne
Kessler, Erica D.
Allen, Laura K.
McNamara, Danielle S.
description This study examined the extent to which prior beliefs and reading instructions impacted elements of a reader's mental representation of multiple texts. College students' beliefs about childhood vaccinations were assessed before reading two anti-vaccine and two pro-vaccine texts. Participants in the experimental condition read for the purpose of integrating across the texts, while those in the control condition read for comprehension. Participants completed a vocabulary assessment then post-reading essays, which were scored for the quality of argumentation and organization. Results indicated that those who were instructed to integrate, held accurate beliefs about vaccines, and demonstrated higher vocabulary knowledge tended to write more organized essays. Participants with inaccurate beliefs about vaccines produced essays that were more incoherent and polarized, even when asked to integrate texts. Although prompting readers to integrate might generally contribute to a more organized mental representation, a more robust intervention may be needed when misconceptions are present.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02702711_2022_2156952</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1384971</ericid><sourcerecordid>3076925942</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-f911c85a7f9dc0c1644869bab40491af5d4d9ee80a4a99e4ef83a7bda235c7bc3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFtP3DAQha0KpC7Qn4Bkqc9ZbMdO4j4VIm4ViJeFV8vxhfUqawfbgfLvSdgtj5VGmpHOd2ZGB4BTjJYYNegMkXoqjJcEEbIkmFWckW9ggRnBBaoadgAWM1PM0HdwlNIGIcyaql6A1IbtEM3aeO38M7wf--yG3sA2-BzDq4nJyR6uzN-coOzCmGG7dr1eh6Dhk1TKeZld8OkXXIXBKXhhemfsxHoNb302z_FTn-aU46g-2RNwaGWfzI99PwaPV5er9qa4e7i-bc_vClVWKBeWY6waJmvLtUIKV5Q2Fe9kRxHlWFqmqebGNEhSybmhxjalrDstSclU3anyGPzc7R1ieBlNymITxuink6JEdcUJ45RMFNtRKoaUorFiiG4r47vASMz5in_5ijlfsc938p3ufCY69eW5_IPLhvIaT_rvne68DXEr30LstcjyvQ_RRumVm974_4kPxGCNoA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3076925942</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions</title><source>Education Source</source><creator>Mason, Anna E. ; Braasch, Jason L. G. ; Greenberg, Daphne ; Kessler, Erica D. ; Allen, Laura K. ; McNamara, Danielle S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anna E. ; Braasch, Jason L. G. ; Greenberg, Daphne ; Kessler, Erica D. ; Allen, Laura K. ; McNamara, Danielle S.</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the extent to which prior beliefs and reading instructions impacted elements of a reader's mental representation of multiple texts. College students' beliefs about childhood vaccinations were assessed before reading two anti-vaccine and two pro-vaccine texts. Participants in the experimental condition read for the purpose of integrating across the texts, while those in the control condition read for comprehension. Participants completed a vocabulary assessment then post-reading essays, which were scored for the quality of argumentation and organization. Results indicated that those who were instructed to integrate, held accurate beliefs about vaccines, and demonstrated higher vocabulary knowledge tended to write more organized essays. Participants with inaccurate beliefs about vaccines produced essays that were more incoherent and polarized, even when asked to integrate texts. Although prompting readers to integrate might generally contribute to a more organized mental representation, a more robust intervention may be needed when misconceptions are present.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0270-2711</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1521-0685</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Philadelphia: Routledge</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Argumentation ; Beliefs ; Children ; College students ; Comparative Analysis ; Essays ; Immunization ; Immunization Programs ; Intervention ; Measures (Individuals) ; Mental representation ; Misconceptions ; Readability ; Readability Formulas ; Reading Comprehension ; Reading Materials ; Reading Processes ; Reading Tests ; Scoring ; Student Attitudes ; Undergraduate Students ; Urban Universities ; Vocabulary Skills</subject><ispartof>Reading psychology, 2023-05, Vol.44 (4), p.436-462</ispartof><rights>2022 Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2022</rights><rights>2022 Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-f911c85a7f9dc0c1644869bab40491af5d4d9ee80a4a99e4ef83a7bda235c7bc3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-f911c85a7f9dc0c1644869bab40491af5d4d9ee80a4a99e4ef83a7bda235c7bc3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5869-1420 ; 0000-0001-9523-9804 ; 0000-0002-1031-2708</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1384971$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anna E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braasch, Jason L. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Daphne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Erica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Laura K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNamara, Danielle S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions</title><title>Reading psychology</title><description>This study examined the extent to which prior beliefs and reading instructions impacted elements of a reader's mental representation of multiple texts. College students' beliefs about childhood vaccinations were assessed before reading two anti-vaccine and two pro-vaccine texts. Participants in the experimental condition read for the purpose of integrating across the texts, while those in the control condition read for comprehension. Participants completed a vocabulary assessment then post-reading essays, which were scored for the quality of argumentation and organization. Results indicated that those who were instructed to integrate, held accurate beliefs about vaccines, and demonstrated higher vocabulary knowledge tended to write more organized essays. Participants with inaccurate beliefs about vaccines produced essays that were more incoherent and polarized, even when asked to integrate texts. Although prompting readers to integrate might generally contribute to a more organized mental representation, a more robust intervention may be needed when misconceptions are present.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Argumentation</subject><subject>Beliefs</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Essays</subject><subject>Immunization</subject><subject>Immunization Programs</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Measures (Individuals)</subject><subject>Mental representation</subject><subject>Misconceptions</subject><subject>Readability</subject><subject>Readability Formulas</subject><subject>Reading Comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Materials</subject><subject>Reading Processes</subject><subject>Reading Tests</subject><subject>Scoring</subject><subject>Student Attitudes</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><subject>Urban Universities</subject><subject>Vocabulary Skills</subject><issn>0270-2711</issn><issn>1521-0685</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kFtP3DAQha0KpC7Qn4Bkqc9ZbMdO4j4VIm4ViJeFV8vxhfUqawfbgfLvSdgtj5VGmpHOd2ZGB4BTjJYYNegMkXoqjJcEEbIkmFWckW9ggRnBBaoadgAWM1PM0HdwlNIGIcyaql6A1IbtEM3aeO38M7wf--yG3sA2-BzDq4nJyR6uzN-coOzCmGG7dr1eh6Dhk1TKeZld8OkXXIXBKXhhemfsxHoNb302z_FTn-aU46g-2RNwaGWfzI99PwaPV5er9qa4e7i-bc_vClVWKBeWY6waJmvLtUIKV5Q2Fe9kRxHlWFqmqebGNEhSybmhxjalrDstSclU3anyGPzc7R1ieBlNymITxuink6JEdcUJ45RMFNtRKoaUorFiiG4r47vASMz5in_5ijlfsc938p3ufCY69eW5_IPLhvIaT_rvne68DXEr30LstcjyvQ_RRumVm974_4kPxGCNoA</recordid><startdate>20230519</startdate><enddate>20230519</enddate><creator>Mason, Anna E.</creator><creator>Braasch, Jason L. G.</creator><creator>Greenberg, Daphne</creator><creator>Kessler, Erica D.</creator><creator>Allen, Laura K.</creator><creator>McNamara, Danielle S.</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-1420</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-9804</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1031-2708</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20230519</creationdate><title>Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions</title><author>Mason, Anna E. ; Braasch, Jason L. G. ; Greenberg, Daphne ; Kessler, Erica D. ; Allen, Laura K. ; McNamara, Danielle S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-f911c85a7f9dc0c1644869bab40491af5d4d9ee80a4a99e4ef83a7bda235c7bc3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Argumentation</topic><topic>Beliefs</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Essays</topic><topic>Immunization</topic><topic>Immunization Programs</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Measures (Individuals)</topic><topic>Mental representation</topic><topic>Misconceptions</topic><topic>Readability</topic><topic>Readability Formulas</topic><topic>Reading Comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Materials</topic><topic>Reading Processes</topic><topic>Reading Tests</topic><topic>Scoring</topic><topic>Student Attitudes</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><topic>Urban Universities</topic><topic>Vocabulary Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mason, Anna E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braasch, Jason L. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Daphne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kessler, Erica D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Allen, Laura K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McNamara, Danielle S.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><jtitle>Reading psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mason, Anna E.</au><au>Braasch, Jason L. G.</au><au>Greenberg, Daphne</au><au>Kessler, Erica D.</au><au>Allen, Laura K.</au><au>McNamara, Danielle S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1384971</ericid><atitle>Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions</atitle><jtitle>Reading psychology</jtitle><date>2023-05-19</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>44</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>436</spage><epage>462</epage><pages>436-462</pages><issn>0270-2711</issn><eissn>1521-0685</eissn><abstract>This study examined the extent to which prior beliefs and reading instructions impacted elements of a reader's mental representation of multiple texts. College students' beliefs about childhood vaccinations were assessed before reading two anti-vaccine and two pro-vaccine texts. Participants in the experimental condition read for the purpose of integrating across the texts, while those in the control condition read for comprehension. Participants completed a vocabulary assessment then post-reading essays, which were scored for the quality of argumentation and organization. Results indicated that those who were instructed to integrate, held accurate beliefs about vaccines, and demonstrated higher vocabulary knowledge tended to write more organized essays. Participants with inaccurate beliefs about vaccines produced essays that were more incoherent and polarized, even when asked to integrate texts. Although prompting readers to integrate might generally contribute to a more organized mental representation, a more robust intervention may be needed when misconceptions are present.</abstract><cop>Philadelphia</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952</doi><tpages>27</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5869-1420</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9523-9804</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1031-2708</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0270-2711
ispartof Reading psychology, 2023-05, Vol.44 (4), p.436-462
issn 0270-2711
1521-0685
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_02702711_2022_2156952
source Education Source
subjects Accuracy
Argumentation
Beliefs
Children
College students
Comparative Analysis
Essays
Immunization
Immunization Programs
Intervention
Measures (Individuals)
Mental representation
Misconceptions
Readability
Readability Formulas
Reading Comprehension
Reading Materials
Reading Processes
Reading Tests
Scoring
Student Attitudes
Undergraduate Students
Urban Universities
Vocabulary Skills
title Comprehending Multiple Controversial Texts about Childhood Vaccinations: Topic Beliefs and Integration Instructions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T01%3A12%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comprehending%20Multiple%20Controversial%20Texts%20about%20Childhood%20Vaccinations:%20Topic%20Beliefs%20and%20Integration%20Instructions&rft.jtitle=Reading%20psychology&rft.au=Mason,%20Anna%20E.&rft.date=2023-05-19&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=436&rft.epage=462&rft.pages=436-462&rft.issn=0270-2711&rft.eissn=1521-0685&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02702711.2022.2156952&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3076925942%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3076925942&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1384971&rfr_iscdi=true