Common

Fostering Skill and Will of Argumentative Reasoning in Processing Fragile and Conflicting Positions

Developmental Psychology and Educational Psychology

What is argumentative thinking good for?
Does climate change lead to more forest dieback? Is resettling the lynx good for the ecology of our forests? These and similar questions on sustainable development are not only characterized by ecological and social relevance, but also include scientific evidence that supports conflicting scientific positions. That means you can find scientific evidence to back up contradicting positions, as for example regarding the impact of climate change on forest dieback. Thus, argumentative thinking is essential for a deeper understanding of the topic and reaching founded conclusion. This includes processes such as arguing from another perspective and carefully evaluating the strength of different arguments and the quality of reasoning.

How to foster the skill and the will to engage in argumentative thinking?
Both the skill and the will are crucial for the engagement in argumentative thinking. Therefore, our project objective is to develop training interventions to foster the skill and the will to engage in argumentative thinking when processing conflicting positions. The training interventions’ effects are experimentally tested. The participants in the experiments are upper-level German high school students. The main components of the training interventions are different video-based examples that show two people discussing the topics of sustainable development and modelling argumentative thinking. The leaners are supported with prompts in the form of questions that encourage the learners to reflect on main principles of the video examples. Previous research has shown that these prompts are an effective measure. Moreover, our training interventions also consist of an argumentation phase in which the learners have the chance to generate their own opinions on a new subject without any support. Based on our previous experiments on single trainings, we are currently in the process of developing a combined training intervention to foster both the will and the skill to engage in argumentative thinking. The effects of this combined training invention are due to be tested in an upcoming experiment and its results shall provide a basis for the development of a blended-learning concept for use at school.

Publications:

Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (in press). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science.

Roelle, J., Krüger, S., Jansen, C., & Berthold, K. (in press). The use of solved example problems for fostering strategies of self-regulated learning in journal writing. Education Research International.

Berthold, K. (2012). Explanatory support for learning. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1241-1244). New York: Springer.

Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2012). The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations. Instructional Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9247-0

Renkl, A. (2012). Example-based learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1197-1199). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Renkl, A. (2011). Instruction based on examples. In R. E. Mayer & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 272–295). New York, NY: Routledge.Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2010). How to foster active processing of explanations in instructional communication. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 25–40.

Rieß, Werner (in press). Förderung systemischen Denkens als Aufgabe einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung. In N. Pütz, M. Schweer &N. Logemann (Hrsg.) Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung – Aktuelle theoretische Konzepte und Beispiele praktischer Umsetzung (S. ?-?).

Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Kilian, B., & Kuhnle, C. (in press). Reciprocal relationship between values and motivational interference during learning and leisure. British Journal of Educational Psychology.

Richter, T. & Schmid, S. (2010). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 47–65. (Authors contributed equally to this article.)

Rieß, W. & Mischo, C. (2010). Promoting systems thinking through biology lessons. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 705–725.

Conference Contributions:

Schmid, S. (2011, Juni). Personal epistemologies behind genre schemas of scientific primary literature. Vortrag gehalten auf der Konferenz Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York.

Applicant 1

Prof. Dr., Dipl.-Psych. Kirsten Berthold
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 13: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 1063102
kirsten.berthold@uni-bielefeld.de
website
Research Interest:
Training interventions to foster transfer
Example-based learning
Focused processsing of instructional explanations
Integration of motivational aspects in approaches of instructional science

Applicant 2

Prof. Dr. Alexander Renkl
Universität Freiburg
Institut für Psychologie
Abteilung Pädagogische Psychologie und Entwicklungspsychologie
Engelbergerstr. 41
79085 Freiburg
Tel.: +49 761 2033003
renkl@psychologie.uni-freiburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Example-based learning
Instructional explanations and self-explanations
Learning from multiple representations
Learning by journal writing
Concept mapping as learning method

Applicant 3

Prof. Dr. Werner Riess
Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg
Kunzenweg 21
79117 Freiburg
Tel.: +49 761 682217
riess@ph-freiburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Education for sustainable development
System thinking
Pedagogical content knowledge

Applicant 4

Dr. Sebastian Schmid
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 12: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 106 3085
sebastian.schmid@uni-bielefeld.de
website
Research Interest:
Epistemological beliefs
Epistemic curiosity
Multiple goals and motivational interference
Procrastination

Applicant 5

Prof. Dr. Stefan Fries
Universität Bielefeld
Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft
Abteilung für Psychologie
AE 12: Psychologie der Bildung und Erziehung
Postfach 10 01 31
33501 Bielefeld
Tel.: +49 521 1063088
stefan.fries@uni-bielefeld.de
website

Research Interest:

Motivational foundations of learning and scientific reasoning
Multiple goals and motivational interference
Motivational intervention in educational contexts
Academic procrastination


Using Concept Maps to enhance students’ socioscientific reasoning

Dr. Sabina Eggert, Goettingen
Prof. Dr. Susanne Bögeholz, Goettingen
Prof. Dr. Matthias Nückles, Freiburg

Publications:

Eggert, S., Ostermeyer, F., Hasselhorn, M., & Bögeholz, S. (in press). Socioscientific Decision Making in the Science Classroom: The Effect of Embedded Metacognitive Instructions on Students’ Learning Outcomes. Education Research International. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1155/2012/309894.

Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S., Hasselhorn, M. & Watermann, R. (2010). Förderung von Bewertungskompetenz im Biologieunterricht durch zusätzliche Strukturierungshilfen beim Kooperativen Lernen – Ein Beispiel für Veränderungsmessung. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 16, 315-327.

Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2010): Students’ Use of Decision Making Strategies with regard to Socioscientific Issues – An Application of the Rasch Partial Credit Model. Science Education, 94, 230-258.

Conference Contributions:

Eggert, S., Nitsch, A., Nückles, M. (2013, März). Förderung von Schülerkompetenzen im Umgang mit fragiler und konfligierender Evidenz am Beispiel Klimawandel – Der Einfluss verschiedener Concept Mapping Vorstrukturierungen. In J. Bauer, M. Prenzel & K. Berthold (Leitung), Kompetenzen zur Bewertung und argumentativen Nutzung von Evidenz. Symposium angenommen bei der 1. Tagung der Gesellschaft für Empirische Bildungsforschung (GEPF) vom 11.-13. März 2013, Kiel.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2012). Concept Maps zur Förderung von Bewertungskompetenz bei Umweltproblemsituationen. Vortrag auf der Nachwuchstagung „Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung – theoretische, konzeptuelle und empirische Perspektiven“, 7.-8. Dezember, Universität Osnabrück.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S., Bögeholz, S. & Nückles, M. (2012). Concept Maps to Foster Students` Socioscientific Reasoning and Decision Making. Postervortrag auf der 9. Tagung der European Researchers in Didactics of Biology, 9th Conference, 17.-21. September, Berlin.

Nitsch, A., Eggert, S. & Bögeholz, S. (2011). Socioscientific Issues: Umgang mit fragiler und konfligierender wissenschaftlicher
Evidenz am Beispiel des Themenkomplexes Klimawandel. Postervortrag auf der Internationalen Tagung der Fachsektion Didaktik der Biologie (FDdB) im VBio: Didaktik der Biologie – Standortbestimmung und Perspektiven, 12. – 16. September, Universität Bayreuth.

 


“What can(‘t) we know? What schould we do?” How scientists andjournalists deal with ignorance and uncertainty in popular science text

Publications:

Janich, Nina/Simmerling, Anne (im Druck, 2012): “Nüchterne Forscher träumen… ” – Nichtwissen im Klimadiskurs unter deskriptiver und kritischer diskursanalytischer Betrachtung. In: Meinhof, Ulrike/Reisigl, Martin/Warnke, Ingo H. (Eds.): Diskurslinguistik im Spannungsfeld von Deskription und Kritik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (= Diskursmuster – Discourse Patterns 1).

eingereicht:
Janich, Nina: „Allem gewachsen“ – Der Klimadiskurs und seine kulturelle Steuerung durch die Wirtschaftswerbung. In: Nielsen, Martin (Hrsg.): Nachhaltigkeit in der Wirtschaftskommunikation (Arbeitstitel). EUKO-Tagungsband 2011. Wiesbaden (= Europäische Kulturen in der Wirtschaftskommunikation).

Janich, Nina/Nordmann, Alfred/Schebek, Liselotte (Hrsg.) (2011, im Druck): Nichtwissenskommunikation in den Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main u.a.: Lang (= Wissen ? Kompetenz ? Text 1).

Rhein, Lisa/Simmerling, Anne/Janich, Nina (im Druck): Nichtwissen, Wissenschaft und Fundamentalismen ? ein Werkstattbericht. In: Matthias Ballod, Tilo Weber (Hrsg.): Kommunikative Unerreichbarkeit im Zeitalter vielfältiger Fundamentalismen. Frankfurt am Main u. a. (= Transferwissenschaften Bd. 9).

Janich, Nina/Rhein, Lisa/Simmerling, Anne (2010): ?Do I know what I don?t know?? The Communication of Non-Knowledge and Uncertain Knowledge in Science. In: Fachsprache. International Journal of Specialized Communication 3-4 (2010), 86-99.


The division of cognitive labour and the integration of information from multiple documents on the Internet

Eductaional psychology, cognitive psychology

In the proposed project it is to be examined how laypersons deal with conflicting scientific expert information on the internet. A widespread variety of internet research is experimentally simulated: Laypersons browse multiple, partly conflicting text documents for expert information in order to reach an informed decision. By coming across conflicting information, the central questions arise under which circumstances laypersons recognize intertextual conflicts and how they handle this paradoxical challenge in order to reach a decision about knowledge claims that surpass their own everyday understanding. The studies predominantly use conflicting claims from the fields of medicine and climate change. In the third project phase we intensify our examination of the resources which laypersons use to process and resolve conflicts. Thereby we differentiate between conflict detection, regulation and resolution as elaborated in our Content-Source-Integration (CSI) Model. In the first series of four studies the role of source characteristics, while dealing with conflicts, is examined. We focus on decompounding the source characteristics which essentially lead to the attribution of epistemic trust. Thereby we investigate the interaction of various source characteristics on conflict resolution as well as the interplay of source characteristics with text-inherent features. In addition, the influence of subject- and value-related prior beliefs on conflict detection, regulation and resolution is examined in another series of three studies. We explore to what extent laypersons use prior beliefs to resolve conflicts, and investigate how their subject- and value-related beliefs are transmitted via the relevance of the information which influences both conflict detection and regulation. Two additional studies are to clarify the role of laypeople’s subjective assumptions about science (Folk Philosophy/Sociology of Science) and the interplay of the different resources used in the resolution of scientific conflicts. On a theoretical level the project aims for an extension of the Documents Model Framework through the CSI Model and for the extension of the Theory of the Division of Cognitive Labor, especially in regards to the handling of conflicting scientific evidence.

Publications

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (accepted). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (in press). You’d better ask an expert: Mitigating the comprehensibility effect on laypeople’s decisions about science-based knowledge claims. Applied Cognitive Psychology.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (in press). The content–source integration model: A taxonomic description of how readers comprehend conflicting scientific information. In D. N. Rapp, & J. Braasch (Eds.), Processing Inaccurate Information: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives from Cognitive Science and the Educational Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending Multiple Documents on Scientific Controversies: Effects of Reading Goals and Signaling Rhetorical Relationships. Discourse Processes, 51, 93-116.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople’s science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361-387. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835

Stadtler, M.,Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2013). How Do Readers Explain the Occurrence of Conflicts in Science Texts? Effects of Presentation Format and Source Expertise? In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (Guest Eds.) (2013). Special Issue on Multiple Document Comprehension. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 121-269. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.771106

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Multiple Document Comprehension: An Approach to Public Understanding of Science. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 122-129.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with Uncertainty: Readers’ Memory for and Use of Conflicting Information from Science Texts as Function of Presentation Format and Source Expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130-150.doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996

Scharrer, L., Britt, M.A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012). Beyond one’s own understanding: How text comprehensibility affects laypeople’s decision about scientific claims. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.965-970). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2012). The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople’s reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22, 231-243. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2012). Does Relevance Matter in Comprehending Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents? Evidence from Online and Offline-Data. In E. de Vries, & K. Scheiter (Eds.), Staging Knowledge and Experience: How to  Take Advantage of Representational  Technologies in Education and Training? Proceedings of the EARLI SIG 2 Meeting (pp. 202-204), Grenoble, France: EARLI SIG 2.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). “It should at least seem scientific!” Textual features of “scientificness” and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education. DOI: 10.1002/sce.20480.

Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating sources and information. Learning and Instruction, 21, 175-179. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.008

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L. & Britt, A. M., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Effects of information comprehensibility and argument type on lay recipients’readiness to defer to experts when deciding about scientific knowledge claims. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2788 -2793). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2011). Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the Web: When expert information breeds laypersons’ doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 193-204. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.02.004

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2011). Effects of epistemological sensitization on source choices. Instructional Science, 39, 805-819. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9155-0

Stadtler, M., & Brand-Gruwel, S. (Eds.) (2011). Special Section: Solving Information Based Problems: searching, selecting and evaluating information. Learning and Instruction, 21, 175-242

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011). How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts. In L. Carlson, C. Hoelscher, & T.F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1346 -1351). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Bromme, R., Kienhues, D. & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Haerle (Eds.), Personal Epistemology in the Classroom: Theory, Research, and Implications for Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stadtler, M., Bromme, R., & Kettler, S. (2009). Dr. Google – geschätzter Kollege? Die Rolle des Internet in der Arzt-Patient-Kommunikation. Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin, 85, 254-259.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737. DOI:10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2008). Using representational guidance to enhance metacognitive activity when learning on the WWW. In J. Canas (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognition and the Web (pp. 173-180). Granada, Spain.

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2007). Dealing with multiple documents on the WWW: The role of metacognition in the formation of documents models. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 191-210. doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9015-3

Stahl, E. & Bromme, R. (2007). The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17, 773-785. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.016

Conference Contributions

Bromme, R. (2013, Februar). The knowledge base of participation: How do laypersons cope with science based expert knowledge which is (partly) beyond their understanding. Invited lecture at the School of Education, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.

Bromme, R. & Chinn, C. (2013, August) Source evaluation and trust: Real matters in a virtual world. (Symposium organized at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Stadtler, M. (2013, Mai).  “I don’t know, but they (should) know!” Judgments about Experts’ Pertinence regarding Online Science Texts. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E. & Stadtler, M. (2013, Mai). “Why can’t they be of one mind?”  Laypersons’ Beliefs about Reasons of Scientific Conflict Measured with the Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) Questionnaire. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Francisco, USA.

Scharrer, L., Stadtler, M., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Vocational students learn to consider source information when deciding about science controversies. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Scharrer, L., Rupieper, Y., Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Science popularization increases lay readers’ reliance on their own decision abilities. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., (2013, August). Discussion of the symposium “Source evaluation and trust: Real matters in a virtual world”. Paper presented at the 15th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Thomm, E., Babiel, S., Hentschke, J. & Bromme, R. (2013, October). Ignorant albeit competent – Examining students’ sourcing competencies and spontaneous use of source information while reading conflicting scientific texts. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Document Literacy, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M.,Scharrer, L., & Bromme, R. (2013). How Do Readers Explain the Occurrence of Conflicts in Science Texts? Effects of Presentation Format and Source Expertise? In M. Knauff, N. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3448-3453). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Hartwig, S., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). Prompting adult readers to monitor for consistency enhances their awareness of scientific conflicts. Paper to be presented at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2013, July). Source information can fuel validity judgments. Empirical investigation of a short training for vocational students. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Valencia, Spain.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). “Who might know, if I don’t know?” Judging a Source’s Trustworthiness by its Pertinence. Paper accepted for presentation at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2013, August). ”Two experts, five opinions!” Measuring Laypersons’ Beliefs about Reasons for Scientific Conflict. Paper accepted for presentation at the 15th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Munich, Germany.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L. & Stadtler, M. (2012, April). Effects of the Text Feature “Scientificness” on Laypeople’s Evaluation and Resolution of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Vancouver, Canada.

Bromme, R. & Stadtler, M. (2012, February). Wissenschaftsverständnis und Internet: Forschungsansätze des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm: Wissenschaft & Öffentlichkeit. Vortrag auf dem 4. Workshop „Kompetenzerwerb und Informationsverarbeitung“ im Rahmen der Leibniz-Workshop-Reihe „Standortbestimmung und Schwerpunktsetzung auf dem Gebiet der Empirischen Bildungsforschung“, Berlin, Germany.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., Thomm, E. & Stadtler, M. (2012, March). Reading Comprehensible Texts about Incomprehensible Concepts (at least from a Lay Perspective): Some Thoughts Based on Our Studies. Paper presented at the Workshop of the DFG Priority Program “Science and the General Public” and CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.

Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Pieschl, S. (2012, September). Which expert has written the text?
Laypersons’ ideas about the structure of expert knowledge when reading science texts.
 
Paper presented at the 5th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Milan, Italy.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, July). The influence of text comprehensibility and controversiality on laypeople’s trust in their own capabilities to decide about scientific claims. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Montreal, Canada.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, October). How laypeople’s decision about scientific claims is influenced by information comprehensibility and controversiality in a multiple documents reading situation. Paper presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Die Wirkung von Informationskontroversaliät auf das Vertrauen von Laien in ihre Entscheidungskompetenz zu wissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, May). Relevance rules – as well in understanding conflicting information?”  How readers adjust their processing of conflicting scientific information to the perceived relevance of information. Paper presented at the Meeting on “Comprehension and validation of information – two separate stages of information processing?”, Kassel, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, August). Does Relevance Matter in Comprehending Scientific Conflicts from Multiple Documents? Evidence from Online and Offline-Data. Paper presented at the Biannual Conference of the SIG2 “Comprehension of Text and Graphics”, Grenoble, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Relevanzeffekte bei der Verarbeitung konfligierender Information aus multiplen Dokumenten. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2012, October). Relevance-Based Processing of Scientific Conflicts: Converging Evidence from Online and Offline Measures. Paper presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Rouet, J.-F., & Bromme, R. (2012, October). Teaching Vocational Students to Resolve Scientific Conflicts Using Source Information. Poster presented at the Multiple Document Literacy Workshop, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2012, September). Wer aus multiplen Dokumenten lernen will, muss metakognitiv wachsam sein: Eine Studie zur Stimulierung metakognitiver Aktivität durch das Prinzip der Representational Guidance. Vortrag auf dem 48. Kongress der DGPs, Bielefeld, Deutschland.

Bromme, R. (2011, November). Wen kann man fragen, wem kann man vertrauen? Studien zum Laienverständnis von wissenschaftlicher Expertise. Vortrag bei den Gießener Abendgesprächen Kognition und Gehirn des Fachgebiets Psychologie der Universität Gießen.

Bromme, R., Scharrer, L., & Stadtler, M. (2011, October). The impact of the text feature ‘scientificness’ on laypeople’s conflict resolution when dealing with controversial multiple documents. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Documents Literacy, Oslo, Norway.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2011, October). How we Conceive of the Processes of Multiple Document Comprehension as of Today. Paper presented at the Workshop on Multiple Documents Literacy, Oslo, Norway.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2011, September). Communicating scientific knowledge to the lay public: Disentangling the influence of argument type and comprehensibility on information persuasiveness. Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Rouet, J.-F. & Stadtler, M. (2011, August). Learning from Multiple Documents: Individual Differences and Conditions that Foster Comprehension. Symposium organized for the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Stadtler, M. & Scharrer, L. (2011, August). Comprehending Multiple Documents: Do Readers Benefit from Linguistic Markers of Conflict? Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, August). Investigating text features of online information affecting laypeople’s perception of scientificness. Paper presented at the 14th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Exeter, United Kingdom.

Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & Stadtler, M. (2011, July). Text easiness affects laypeople’s reliance on their own epistemic capabilities when having to decide about scientific claims. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011, July). Comprehending Conflicts Between Sources: The Beneficial Effect of Coherence-Oriented Reading Goals and Text Signals. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Society of Text and Discourse, Poitiers, France.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2011, July). How Reading Goals and Rhetorical Signals Influence Recipients’ Recognition of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, USA.

Stadtler, M. (2011, June). Multiple Documents Literacy – A Key to the Public Engagement with Science. Paper presented at the DFG-NSF Conference Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York City, NY, USA.

Thomm, E., Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., & Stadtler, M. (2011, June). Effects of the Text Feature Scientificness on Laypeople’s Resolution of Intertextual Conflicts. Paper presented at the DFG-NSF Conference Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York City, NY, USA.

Bromme, R. (2011, Mai). Knowledge ABOUT Science: Judgments about the Pertinence of Experts to Complex Problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Advisory Board of the German National Educational Panel (NEPS), Bamberg.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, May). ‘It Should at Least Appear Scientific!’ Textual Features of ‘Scientificness’ and Their Impact on Lay Assessments of Online Information. Paper presented at the Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2011, May). Knowing who knows – Judgments about the Pertinence of Experts to Complex Problems. Paper presented at the Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Management, Technion, Haifa, Israel.

Bromme, R., Porsch, T., & Thomm, E. (2011, April). Who knows what? Epistemic judgments about the pertinence of experts to complex problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans, LA, USA.

Stadtler, M. & Bromme, R. (2010, Oktober). Multiple Documents Literacy: a key to the Public Engagement with Science in a Digitalized World. Vortrag auf dem Workshop “Comprehending Multiple Documents on the Internet. The Road to the Public Engagement with Science in the 21st Century”, Universität Münster.

Brummernhenrich, B., Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Erkennen Laien Konflikte in wissenschaftlichen Internettexten? Eine Untersuchung zum Einfluss von Konsistenzerwartungen auf das Verständnis multipler Dokumente. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Empirische Pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Kann ich das entscheiden? Epistemologische Überzeugungen und die Qualität von Informationsquellen als Prädiktoren der Entscheidungsbereitschaft. Poster bei dem 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen, Deutschland.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Kann ich das entscheiden? Epistemologische Überzeugungen und Autoreneigenschaften als Prädiktoren der Entscheidungsbereitschaft. Vortrag auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für empirische pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Expertise, Glaubwürdigkeit und Konflikte: Herausforderungen im Umgang mit dem Internet als Informationsquelle. Symposium für die 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für empirische pädagogische Forschung (AEPF), Jena.

Stadtler, M., Bromme, R. Scharrer, L., & Brummernhenrich, B. (2010, September). Entdecken Leser Konflikte in wissenschaftlichen Informationen? Der Einfluss von Konsistenzerwartungen auf die kognitive Integration multipler Dokumente. Vortrag auf dem 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Bremen.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Ratermann, K., & Bromme, R. (2010, September). Das Verständnis wissenschaftlicher Lerninhalte: Wie erklären sich Leser Widersprüche in Informationstexten aus dem Internet. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung, Jena.

Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2010, September). „Zwei Ärzte, fünf Meinungen!” – Laienannahmen über Ursachen von Widersprüchen zwischen Experten der Medizin als Wissenschaft und Praxisfeld. Vortrag gehalten auf der 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung, Jena.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2010, August). Dealing with the uncertain: how readers detect and attribute conflicts in science texts as a function of discourse expectations. Paper presented at the 20th annual meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Chicago, USA.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2010, July). Knowing who knows – Laypersons’ Assumptions about the Division of Cognitive Labor. Paper presented at the 5th Annual Science and the Public Conference, London, United Kingdom.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, June). Which science disciplines are pertinent? Impact of epistemological beliefs on students’ choices. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), Chicago, USA.

Porsch, T. & Bromme, R. (2010, May). What do I know and who else knows? Impact of epistemological beliefs on students choices. 4th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Ratermann, K. (2010, May). Comprehending scientific documents: How do readers explain conflicting accounts to themselves?. Paper presented at the 4th. Biennal Meeting of the SIG Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., & Ratermann, K. (2010, May). Comprehending scientific documents: How do readers explain conflicting accounts to themselves? Paper presented at the 4th. Biennal Meeting of the SIG Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Thomm, E., Bromme, R., & Porsch, T. (2010, May). Laypersons’ assumptions about the distribution of expertise: studying the feeling of knowledge held by others. 4th Biennial Meeting of the EARLI Special Interest Group 16 Metacognition, Münster, Germany.

Stadtler, M. (2009, October). Dealing with conflicting information in Multiple Documents: the role of coherence expectations. Invited talk at the Centre de Recherches sur la Cognition et l’Apprentissage (CeRCA), Poitiers, France.

Bromme, R. (2009, August). Blurring the Lines: The Influence of the Internet on the Nature of Competence. Invited presentation at the symposium ‘What is competence really? (Organized by P. Alexander) at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Bromme, R. (2009, August). If you do not know, ask someone else! Metacognition, epistemological beliefs and the division of cognitive labor. Invited keynote presentation at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2009, August). The effect of representation format and epistemological beliefs on the identification of inconsistent scientific information. Paper presented at the 13th Biennal Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Applicant 1
Prof. Dr. Rainer Bromme
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339135
bromme@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Cognition and teaching/learning processes, especially related to the:
- communication and understanding between Science and the Public
- development of professional expertise
- learning with New Media
- the development of knowledge and understanding in Science and Mathematics

Applicant 2
PD Dr. phil Marc Stadtler
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8331372
marc.stadtler@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Learning with multiple documents on the WWW
Learner Variables: Metacognition, Epistemological beliefs
Teaching and learning with New Media
Expert-Layperson-Communication
Conflict Management

Staff 1
Dr.  Eva Charlotte Thomm
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339197
e.thomm@gmx.de
Website
Research Interest
Division of Cognitive Labor and Public Understanding of Science
Public Engagement with Science
Credibility and Communication
Searching and Evaluating Information on the Internet

Staff 2
Dr. Lisa Scharrer
Institut für Psychologie
WWU Münster
Fliednerstraße 21
48149 Münster
Tel.: +49 251 8339379
lisa.scharrer@uni-muenster.de
Website
Research Interest
Public understanding of science
Division of cognitive labor
Argumentation
Learning with multiple documents

 


Reception of Online Science Information – Factors of Selection and Attitude Formation

Publications:

Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: How source cues, message sidedness, and need for cognition influence users’ exposure to blog posts. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 80-96. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01596.x/abstract

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J. & Schielke, K. (2010). Information Selection in the Blogosphere – The Effect of Expertise, Community Rating, and Age. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 802-807). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Winter, S., Eimler, S. C., Haferkamp, N. & Krämer, N. C. (2010). Bildung zum Download? Der Einfluss von Print- und Online-Medien auf das Allgemeinwissen. In S. Trepte & M. Verbeet (Hrsg.), Allgemeinbildung in Deutschland – Erkenntnisse aus dem SPIEGEL-Studentenpisa-Test (S. 315-332). Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Conference Contributions:

Rösner, L., Winter, S., Krämer, N. C. & Neubaum, G. (2012, September). Searching for credible information – Effects of source cues and community ratings on the selection of science articles on news sites and in blogs. Forschungsreferat beim 48. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs), Bielefeld.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Neubaum, G., Rösner, L., & Appel, J. (2012, May). Selecting science information in Web 2.0: Effects of personality characteristics, source cues, and message complexity. Presentation at the annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Phoenix, USA.

Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2012, April). Coping with information overload: How laypersons select science-related content in Web 2.0. Presentation at the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCST) conference. Florence, Italy.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Neubaum, G., & Appel, J. (2011, August). Lost in the Web? – The Effect of Information Complexity and Cognitive Abilities on the Selection of Online Science Articles. Presentation at the 7th Conference of the Media Psychology Division of the DGPs. Bremen, Germany.

Krämer, N. C. & Winter, S. (2011, June). The Effects of Message Complexity and Source Information on the Selection of Online Science Articles. Presentation at the DFG-NSF conference “Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science”. New York, USA.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., Schielke, K., & Neubaum, G. (2011, May). The Influence of Information Complexity on the Selection of Online Science Articles. Presentation at the Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Boston, USA.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Schielke, K. (2011, May). A Question of Expertise: How Heuristic Source Cues Influence Selective Exposure to Online Science Information. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Boston, USA.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Appel, J., & Neubaum, G. (2011, March). Both Sides of the Story? – How Information Complexity Influences the Selection of Online Science Articles. Presentation at the General Online Research (GOR) Conference. Düsseldorf, Germany

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Schielke, K. & Appel, J. (2010, September). Der Einfluss der Quelle auf die Auswahl von Wissenschaftsinformationen in Blogs. Poster beim 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPS). Bremen.

Winter, S. & Krämer, N. C. (2010, July). Science Information in the Internet – The Effect of Source Cues on Selective Exposure. Presentation at the Conference “Science and the Public”. London, UK.

Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Schielke, K., & Appel, J. (2010, June). Credibility in the blogosphere – Source effects on the selection of online science information. Presentation at the annual conference of the International Communication Association (ICA). Singapore.


Effects of Communication with Experts on the Evaluation of Ambiguous Scientific Evidence: Cognitive Tuning and Social Tuning

Social Psychology

How useful are routine vaccinations? How dangerous is mobile phone radiation to one’s health? Should we use nuclear power in order to prevent climate change? Science provides important, but often ambiguous and contradictory, information about these issues. We want to form attitudes or opinions about these topics, especially when they matter to us or even have an existential meaning to us. Forming an attitude helps us to take a position and adjust our decisions and actions accordingly.

In our project, we investigate the processes that contribute to forming an opinion in conversations about such ambiguous topics. First, we examine whether one’s attitude can be affected by the expectation of communication, even when the attitude of the anticipated communication partner is unknown. Previous research suggests that the anticipation of producing a message can lead us to form more coherent and more extreme attitudes toward a topic, especially when already have an initial stance or preexisting attitude. This effect has been dubbed cognitive tuning. Assume that you are expecting a conversation about climate change with either a layperson or a climate expert. We predict that you will be more likely to create more coherent and extreme attitudes, and thus exhibit cognitive tuning, when preparing for a conversation with the layperson. This is because an expert could possibly ask more elaborate queries, so that you feel you should remain more open-minded.

Moreover, we examine cases in which the expert’s opinion about ambiguous scientific topics is known. When would we tune our own attitudes to the conversation partner’s opinion? We think that the experience of a personal connection with the expert plays a crucial role. Therefore, we want to experimentally manipulate the experience of a personal connection with an expert. Does it matter whether the partner sees one’s messages immediately and can therefore react instantly or whether she or he responds only after a delay, such as in Internet forums or e-mail? Are we more likely to tune our opinion to the conversation partner’s opinion when the partner discloses information about private issues (such as autobiographical facts, hobbies or personal preferences) or when her or his language signals a greater connection? For instance, we suspect that people are more likely to experience a connection with an expert when she or he uses the plural pronoun “we” rather than the corresponding two singular pronouns (“you and I”).

Applicant 1:
Prof. Dr. Gerald Echterhoff
Universität Münster
Institut für Psychologie
AE Sozialpsychologie
Fliednerstr. 21
48149 Münster
0251/83-34386
g.echterhoff@uni-muenster.de
Website
Forschungsschwerpunkte/-interessen
social influence
communication and language
memory biases
situated social cognition– social contagion – shared reality– simulation and attribution of actions –intergroup processes
emotions in social context (responses to infidelity, jealousy)

Staff 1
Dipl.-Psych. Judith Knausenberger
Universität Münster
Institut für Psychologie
AE Sozialpsychologie
Fliednerstr. 21
48149 Münster
0251/83 343 81
judith.knausenberger@uni-muenster.de
Website
Forschungsschwerpunkte/-interessen
Political psychology
intergroup processes
intergroup and interpersonal conflict
interpersonal communication



Epistemic processing of multiple science texts on the internet

Prof. Dr. Tobias Richter, Kassel

Publications:

Richter, T. & Schmid, S. (in press) 
Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning.

Richter, T., Schroeder, S. & Wöhrmann, B. (2009)
You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538-558.

Conference Contributions:

Richter, T. (2009, September)
Epistemische Validierung beim Lernen mit Texten. Überblicksreferat auf der Fachtagung Pädagogische Psychologie, Saarbrücken.

Richter, T. & Wippich, S. (2009, August)
Learning from multiple texts about conflicting scientific issues: Effects of text order and processing goal. Paper to be presented at the 13th Biannual Conference of the European Association of Learning and Instruction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Isberner, M. & Richter, T. (2009, July)
The epistemic Stroop effect: Evidence for routine epistemic validation processes in language comprehension. Paper to be presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.


Knowledge construction with conflicting information from internet-based texts and pictures

Applied Cognitive Psychology, Educational Psychology, Media Psychology

A growing amount of science-related information is recently published on Internet. Therefore, learners searching online for information on scientific topics currently debated in public (for example on the potential of sustainable energy) often come across multiple texts containing different arguments and communicating contradictory points of view. In many cases this is not due to the publications’ lack of quality but rather arises from the fact that these topics are discussed controversially in science itself, because scientific evidence does not provide a definite picture yet. Thus, the question arises how the communication of conflicting science-related information can be structured to foster the construction of a coherent referential representation (situation model) of a scientific topic. Besides learner characteristics that influence the construction of such a representation, the layout and presentation of the information are likely to be crucial. One characteristic that is very common for the presentation of information in scientific texts is the use of pictures to visualize quantitative empirical results (e.g. line graphs) or to illustrate matters in the text (e.g. photographs). Over the course of the project experimental data were analysed and showed that pictures are used as cues for the assessment of the plausibility of given information. Specifically, we found that realistic pictures can induce a perception of fluency, depending on learner characteristics. However, the fluency effect has not yet been explored accordingly concerning diagrams. Hence, we plan to examine the assumption that fluency also mediates the effect of diagrams on the comprehension of conflicting information. Depending on learner characteristics, fluency should either lead to a more superficial processing or should be used as a plausibility cue in an elaborative processing. As a first step, we plan to provide conclusive evidence that diagrams have a (positive effect) on the perception of fluency during the comprehension of controversial scientific texts by using detailed process analysis and an experimental manipulation of the determinants of fluency. Subsequently, we will focus on the question how perception of fluency, caused by diagrams in learning with conflicting science related texts, affects the process and outcome of learning. Depending on learner characteristics, fluency should have different effects on text comprehension: a positive effect when the perception of fluency is interpreted as a plausibility cue concerning the text and a negative effect when it indicates illusory comprehension. These assumptions will be investigated by the means of moderated mediation analyses.

Publications:

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (in press). Does validation during language comprehension depend on an evaluative mindset? Discourse Processes.

Isberner, M.-B., Richter, T., Maier, J., Knuth-Herzig, K., Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2013). Comprehending conflicting science-related texts: Graphs as plausibility cues. Instructional Science. doi: 10.1007/s11251-012-9261-2

Isberner, M.-B. & Richter, T. (2013). Can readers ignore implausibility? Evidence for nonstrategic monitoring of event-based plausibility in language comprehension. Acta Psychologica, 142, 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.10.003

Richter, T. (2011). Cognitive flexibility and epistemic validation in learning from multiple texts. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility (pp. 125-140). Berlin: Springer.

Fries, S., Horz, H. & Haimerl, C. (2006). Pygmalion in media-based Teaching? Effects of quality expectancies on learning outcome. Learning & Instruction, 16 , 339-349.

Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2008). Multimedia: How to combine language and visuals. Language at Work, 4, 43-50.Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (in press). Multimedialer Wissenserwerb. In Spiel, C. et al.. Bildungspsychologie.

Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (in press). Cognitive Load in learning with multiple representations. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Bruenken (Eds.), Cognitive Load: Theory & Application. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Richter, T. (2003). Epistemologische Einschätzungen beim Textverstehen [Epistemic validation in text comprehension]. Lengerich: Pabst.

Richter, T. & Schmid, S. (in press). Epistemological beliefs and epistemic strategies in self-regulated learning. Metacognition and Learning.

Richter, T., Schroeder, S. & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don’t have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538-558.

Schnotz, W. (2005). An Integrated Model of Text and Picture Comprehension. In R.E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 49-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schnotz, W. & Horz, H. (2009). Wissenserwerb mit Texten und Bildern. In L. J. Issing & P. Klimsa (Hrsg.), Online-Lernen (S. 87-104). München: Oldenbourg.

Schnotz, W., & Kürschner, C. (2008). External and internal representations in the acquisition and use of knowledge: visualization effects on mental model construction. Instructional Science, 36, 175-190.

Schroeder, S., Richter, T. & Hoever, I. (2008). Getting a picture that is both accurate and stable: Situation models and epistemic validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 237-255.

Conference Contributions:

Knuth-Herzig, Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2012, 13.-17. April) Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Pictures as Plausibility Cues. Paper to be presented at the 2012 AERA Annual Meeting. Vancouver, Canada.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Horz, H. & Schnotz, W. (2011, 14.-16. September) Das Verständnis multipler Dokumente mit konfligierenden Informationen: Abbildungen als Glaubwürdigkeitsindikatoren. Paper presented at the 13. Fachgruppentagung der Pädagogischen Psychologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Erfurt, Germany.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Horz, H. (2011, 11.-13. July). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Credibility Cues. Paper presented at the Twenty-first Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse. Poitiers, France.

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Schnotz, W., Richter, T. & Horz, H. (2011, 28. June-1. July). Knowledge construction with conflicting information from Internet-based texts and pictures. Paper presented at the conference „Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science“. New York, USA.

Horz, H., Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Isberner, M. (2011, 10.-11. March). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Credibility Cues. Poster presented at the workshop “Science Learning in Informal Settings: The Set-up of Fragile, Critical Science Issues and its Effects on Recipients”. Tuebingen, Germany.

Knuth-Herzig, K. & Schnotz, W. (2011, 9.-11. March). Die Glaubwürdigkeitseinschätzung von Webseiten als Einfluss auf die Informationsverarbeitung in Abhängigkeit von der Interneterfahrung. Poster presented at the NWU-Workshop. Essen, Germany.

Herzig, K. (2010, 29. November-1. December). Person oder Information – Wer soll sich anpassen? Paper presentation and panel discussion subject to „Umgang mit Unsicherheit in der Wissenschaftskommunikation“ at the 3. Forum Wissenschaftskommunikation. Mannheim, Germany

Knuth-Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Richter, T., Schnotz, W. & Horz, H. (2010, 27.-29. Oktober). Comprehension of Multiple Documents with Conflicting Information: Pictures as Peripheral Credibility Cues. Paper presented at the workshop “Comprehending multiple documents on the Internet. The road to the public engagement with science in the 21st century”. Muenster, Germany.

Herzig, K., Maier, J., Isberner, M., Schnotz, W., Richter, T. & Horz, H. (2010, 13.-15. September). Der Einfluss von Diagrammen auf die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit und das Verstehen wissenschaftlicher Texte mit konfligierenden Informationen. Paper presented at the 74. Tagung der Arbeitsgruppe für Empirische Pädagogische Forschung (AEPF). Jena, Germany.

Horz, H., Schnotz, W., Richter, T., Herzig, K., Maier, J. & Isberner, M. (2010, 26.-30. September). Der Einfluss von Diagrammen auf die wahrgenommene Glaubwürdigkeit und das Verstehen wissenschaftlicher Texte mit konfligierenden Informationen. Paper presented at the 47. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (DGPs). Bremen, Germany.

Applicant 1
Prof. Dr. Holger Horz
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Arbeitsbereich Pädagogische Psychologie
AE Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens im Erwachsenenalter &
Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Hochschuldidaktik (IKH)
PEG-Gebäude (HP 71)
Grüneburgplatz 1
60323 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 (0)69 798-35363
Horz@psych.uni-frankfurt.de
Website
Research interest

Integrative Text- and Picture Comprehension/ Integratives Text- und Bildverstehen Multimedia Learning / Multimediales LernenBlended LearningInstructional Design of Multimedia/ Instruktionales Design multimedialer LernumgebungenDesign of Instructional Support / Gestaltung instruktionaler HilfenTeleteaching

Applicant 2
Prof. Dr. Tobias Richter
Institut für Psychologie, Allgemeine Psychologie
Universität Kassel, Fachbereich Humanwissenschaften
Holländische Str. 36-38
34127 Kassel
Tel. (direkt): +49 (0)561 804 3577
Tel. Sekretariat: Tanja Kühle +49 (0)561 804 3574
Fax: +49 (0)561 804 3586
tobias.richter@uni-kassel.de
Website
Research interest

Language/Text Comprehension and Learning / Sprach-/Textverstehen und Lernen- Epistemic validation in language comprehension and learning / Epistemische Validierung beim Sprachverstehen und Lernen – Perceptual representations in language comprehension and learning / Wahrnehmungsbasierte Repräsentationen beim Sprachverstehen und Lernen – Reading skills / Lesefähigkeiten – Learning with new media and multiple representations / Lernen mit neuen Medien und multiplen RepräsentationenResearch Methods / Forschungsmethoden- Multilevel analysis in cognitive and educational research / Mehrebenenanalyse in der kognitiven und pädagogisch-psychologischen Forschung – Efficiency- and process-based assessment of cognitive skills / Effizienz- und prozessbasierte Erfassung kognitiver Fähigkeiten

Staff 1
Katja Knuth-Herzig
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt
Arbeitsbereich Pädagogische Psychologie
AE Psychologie des Lehrens und Lernens im Erwachsenenalter &
Interdisziplinäres Kolleg Hochschuldidaktik (IKH)
PEG-Gebäude (HP 71)
Grüneburgplatz 1
60323 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: +49 (0)69 798-35363
Knuth-Herzig@psych.uni-frankfurt.de

Staff 2
Maj-Britt Isberner, Dipl.-Psych.
Universität Kassel
Institut für Psychologie
Holländische Str. 36-38
34127 Kassel
Tel.: +49 (0)561 804 3582
maj-britt.isberner@uni-kassel.de

 

 


Understanding fragile and conflicting scientific evidence: Media frames and recipients frames in science TV shows

Prof. Dr. Georg Ruhrmann, Jena
Prof. Dr. Michaela Maier, Koblenz-Landau

Publications

Günther, L., Ruhrmann, G. & Milde, J. (2011)
Pandemie: Wahrnehmung der gesundheitlichen Risiken durch die Bevölkerung und Konsequenzen für die Risiko- und Krisenkommunikation. Berlin: Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit, Schriftenreihe Sicherheit Nr. 7.

Maier, M., Stengel, K., Marschall, J., Ruhrmann, G., Zillich, A. F. & Göbbel, R. (2011)
Synchronisierung von Erhebungsinstrumenten zur Erfassung des dynamischen Nachrichtenprozesses am Beispiel der Krisenkommunikation. In O. Jandura & T. Quandt (Hrsg.), Methoden der Journalismusforschung (S. 237–255). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Milde, J. & Hölig, S. (2011)
„Das Bild ist stärker als das Wort“ – Selektions- und Darstellungskriterien von TV-Wissenschaftsjournalisten beim Thema Molekulare Medizin. In G. Ruhrmann, J. Milde & A. F. Zillich (Hrsg.), Molekulare Medizin und Medien. Zur Darstellung und Wirkung eines kontroversen Wissenschaftsthemas (S. 71-97). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Retzbach, A., Marschall, J., Rahnke, M., Otto, L. & Maier, M. (2011)
Public understanding of science and the perception of nanotechnology: The roles of interest in science, methodological knowledge, epistemological beliefs, and beliefs about science. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. doi: 10.1007/s11051-011-0582-x

Ruhrmann, G., Milde, J. & Zillich, A. F. (Hrsg.). (2011) 
Molekulare Medizin und Medien. Zur Darstellung und Wirkung eines kontroversen Wissenschaftsthemas. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Maier, M., Stengel, K. & Marschall, J. (2010) 
Nachrichtenwerttheorie. Konzepte: Ansätze der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 2. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

Milde, J. (2009) 
Vermitteln und Verstehen: Zur Verständlichkeit von Wissenschaftsfilmen im Fernsehen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

Kongressbeiträge

Günther, L., Milde, J. & Ruhrmann, G. (2011, August) 
The Impact of Cancer Therapy Media Presentation On the Audience: A Framing Analysis. Vortrag auf der National Conference on Health Communication, Marketing, and Media, Atlanta, USA.

Marschall, J. & Maier, M. (2011, Juni)
The cultivation of science beliefs by science TV shows. Vortrag auf der DFG-NSF Conference on Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York, USA.

Ruhrmann, G., Milde, J. & Günther, L. (2011, Juni)
Framing Scientific Evidence of Molecular Medicine in Science TV shows. Vortrag auf der DF-NSF Conference on Public Understanding and Public Engagement with Science, New York, USA.

Marschall, J., Rahnke, M., Otto, L. & Maier, M. (2011, Mai) 
The representation of scientific evidence in German science TV shows and recipients’ understanding of science: Results from an online field experiment. Vortrag auf der 61. Jahrestagung der International Communication Association (ICA), Boston, USA.

Milde, J., Günther, L. & Ruhrmann, G. (2011, Mai) 
Framing Scientific Evidence in German Science TV-Shows. Vortrag auf der 61. Jahrestagung der International Communication Association (ICA), Boston, USA.

Günther, L., Milde, J., Ruhrmann, G. & Bockelmann, J. (2010, Oktober)
Representation of Scientific Evidence in Science TV Shows. Vortrag auf der 3. European Communication Conference der European Communication Research Association (ECREA), Hamburg.

Marschall, J., Maier, M. & Otto, L. (2010, Oktober)
Recipients’ perception of the fragility of scientific evidence: Development and population-based testing of a German and an English measurement scale. Posterpräsentation auf der 3. European Communication Conference der European Communication Research Association (ECREA), Hamburg.

Ruhrmann, G., Maier, M., Bockelmann, J., Marschall, J. & Milde, J. (2010, Juli)
Representation of scientific evidence in science TV shows and the public understanding of fragile scientific evidence. Vortrag auf der 5. Science and the Public Conference, Imperial College London.

Ruhrmann, G., Maier, M., Milde, J., Marschall, J. & Bockelmann, J. (2010, Juli) 
Comprehension of fragile and conflicting scientific evidence on the basis of media and recipients’ frames. Vortrag auf der IAMCR Conference, Braga, Portugal.


The role of moral heuristics in processing fragile and conflicting evidence concerning societal risks

General psychology, social psychology, risk research

Major societal transformations and technologies such as global warming, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, terrorism, and other risks often imply highly controversial public discussions concerning their causes and consequences. Moreover, societal risks often raise fundamental ethical and moral issues. When evaluating these risks, lay people have to not only comprehend the complex underlying scientific information, they also face the problem of dealing with conflicting scientific findings and interpretations. We examine the hypothesis that lay people resolve uncertainties and ambiguities in the evaluation of scientific evidence by applying so-called moral heuristics in order to form a judgment. A moral heuristic is an intuitive mechanism yielding a judgment about the moral quality of an activity. An epistemic judgment about the correctness or probability of a statement is thereby substituted by a moral judgment about the blameworthiness of a related activity; this process is called attribute substitution. Moral heuristics are based on moral emotions such as indignation or disgust which are immediate reactions triggered by events that are perceived to be morally relevant. We assume that moral heuristics are more likely to be activated if the available evidence about a societal risk is equivocal and conflicting. The close association between moral and epistemic judgments as well as the moralizing of evidence are characteristic features of public discourses about societal risks.

Publications:

Böhm, G., & Tanner, C. (2013). Risk perception. In L. Steg, A. E. van den Berg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 15-25). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Rosentrater, L., Sælensminde, I., Böhm, G., Ekstrøm, F., Hanss, D., O’Connor, R., & Bostrom, A. (in press). Understanding support for climate change policies in Norway. Environment and Behavior.

Pfister, H.-R., & Böhm, G. (2012). Emotion und Moral bei der Risikowahrnehmung. Spektrum der Wissenschaft SPEZIAL, 1/12, 66-73.
(http://www.spektrum.de/alias/spektrum-spezial-1-2012/wie-entscheiden-wirim-widerstreit-zwischen-vernunft-und-bauchgefuehl/1139833)

Bostrom, A., O’Connor, R. E., Böhm, B., Hanss, D., Bodi, O., Ekström, F., Halder, P., Jeschke, S., Mack, B., Qu, M., Rosentrater, L., Sandve, A., & Sælensminde, I. (2012). Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 22, 210-222.

Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. (2011). Tourism in the face of environmental risks: Sunbathing under the ozone hole, and strolling through polluted air. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 11, 250-267.

Conference Contributions:

Bassarak, C. Moral Aspects in Mental Models of Risk Perception. KogWis – 11th Biannual Conference of the German Cognitive Science Society, Bamberg, Germany, September 30 – October 3, 2012.

Bassarak, C. Moral aspects and the role of fragility in perceiving societal risks. Poster presentation. Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, San Francisco (CA), USA, December 9-12, 2012.

Böhm, G. Causal beliefs, risk perception, and policy preferences concerning climate change among economics students from six countries. Research seminar ‘Climate Change: Media, Politics and Society’, University of  Bergen, Norway, October 18, 2012.

Böhm, G. Human perception of uncertainty. Workshop on ‘Democracy, Justice and Climate Change’, University of  Bergen, Norway, November 5, 2012.

Böhm, G. Human perception of uncertainty. Research seminar ‘Law, Uncertainty and Climate Change Adaptation’, University of  Bergen, Norway, October 24, 2012.

Böhm, G., & Pfister, H.-R. Mental models and risk perceptions of global environmental risks. SRA World Congress on Risk, Sydney, Australia, July 18-20, 2012.

Böhm, G., Bostrom, A., O’Connor, R., & Hanns, D. A cross-national comparison of causal beliefs, risk perceptions, and policy preferences with respect to climate change. 21st Annual Meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis-Europe, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, June 18-20, 2012.

Böhm, G. Public perception and evaluation of environmental risks. Keynote. The XIII Conference on Social and Community Psychology, Lillehammer, Norway, November 3, 2011

Böhm, G. Perception, knowledge, and psychological responses to climate change; communicating uncertainty. Lectures as part of the course ‘Climate Change Narratives’ the Bergen Summer Research School (www.bsrs.no; organizers: Kjerstin Fløttum and Trine Dahl), University of  Bergen, Norway, June 20 – July 1, 2011.

Böhm, G., & Ivarsflaten, E. Public perception of climate change: Psychological and political science perspective. Ph.D .Forum ‚Social Science Perspectives on Climate Change’ of the Department of Geophysics at the University of Bergen, Norway. Finse, Norway, March 8, 2011.

Böhm, G., Bostrom, A., O’Connor, R., & Hanss, D. Climate change: The relationship between causal beliefs, risk perceptions, and preferences for policy actions. 9th Biennial Conference on Environmental Psychology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, September 26-28, 2011.

Böhm, G., Bostrom, A., O’Connor, R., & Hanss, D. The role of causal beliefs in climate change perceptions and preferences for policy actions. 23rd biennial Conference on Sub­jecti­ve Probability, Utility, and Decision Making (SPUDM-21), Kingston upon Thames, UK, August 21-25, 2011.

Applicant 1

Prof. Dr. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Institut für Experimentelle Wirtschaftspsychologie
Wilschenbrucher Weg 84
21335 Lüneburg
Tel.: +49 4131 6777759
pfister@uni-lueneburg.de
website
Research Interest:
Behavioral Decision Making
Risk Research
Human-Computer-Interaction

Applicant 2

Prof. Dr. Gisela Böhm
University of Bergen
Faculty of Psychology
DICE-Lab
Christiesgt.12
5015 Bergen
Norway
Tel.: +47 55 588680
gisela.boehm@psysp.uib.no
website
Research Interest:
Social cognition
Behavioral decision making
Risk research
Research methodology

Staff

Claudia Bassarak
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg
Institut für Experimentelle Wirtschaftspsychologie
Wilschenbrucher Weg 84
21335 Lüneburg
Tel.: +49 4131 6777758
bassarak@leuphana.de
website


top of page