Undergrauate participants read both a one-sided text on educational reform and a two-sided nonrefutational text on the V-Chip. Students completed topic-specific beliefs, knowledge, and interest measures and reacted to specific text characteristics. The results indicated that although both forms of text affected readers, the effects varied by the type of argument structure. Specifically, after adjusting for topic, the one-sided text was more effective in changing readers' beliefs than the two-sided nonrefutational text, whereas the two-sided nonrefutational article was more effective in changing participants' knowledge. The knowledge and interest profiles of more or less persuaded readers differed significantly for the two-sided nonrefutational text but not for the one-sided text. Readers' reactions to the articles also differed by argument structure. Overall, this study contributes to the understanding of readers' processing of one-sided and two-sided nonrefutational texts.
References
1.
AlexanderP.A.FivesH.BuehlM.M.MulhernJ.A. (2000, April). Teaching as persuasion: A case in point. In MurphyP. K.Chair, Teaching as persuasion: A new metaphor for a new decade. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
2.
AlexanderP.A.KulikowichJ.M.SchulzeS.K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379–397.
3.
AlexanderP.A.MurphyP.K. (1998). Profiling the differences in student's knowledge, interest, and recall: Assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559–575.
4.
AlexanderP.A.MurphyP.K.BuehlM.M.SperlC.T. (1998). The influence of prior knowledge, beliefs, and interest in learning from persuasive text. In ShanahanT.Rodriguez-BrownF. (Eds.), Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
5.
AlexanderP.A.MurphyP.K.BuehlM.M.SperlC.T. (in press). The persuasiveness of persuasive discourses: The interplay of learner and text. International Journal of Educational Research..
6.
AllenM. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390–404.
7.
AllenM.HaleJ.MongeauP.Berkowitz-StaffordS.StaffordS.ShannahanW.AgeeP.DillionK.JacksonR.RayC. (1990). Testing a model of message sidedness: Three replications. Communication Monographs, 57, 275–291.
8.
AlvermannD.E.SmithL.C.ReadenceJ.E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 420–436.
9.
ChamblissM.J. (1995). Text cues and strategies successful readers use to construct the gist of lengthy written arguments. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 778–807.
10.
ChamblissM.J.GarnerR. (1996). Do adults change their minds after reading persuasive text?Written Communication, 13, 291–313.
11.
ChamblissM.J.MurphyP.K. (1998, December). Processes fourth and fifth graders use to read social studies arguments critically. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
12.
ChinnC.A.BrewerW.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.
13.
CooperL. (1932). The rhetoric of Aristotle.New York: Appleton-Century.
14.
DoleJ.A.SinatraG.M. (1994). Social psychology research on beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning form text. In GarnerR.AlexanderP.A. (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about instruction with text (pp. 245–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
DoleJ.A.SinatraG.M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33, 109–128.
16.
GarnerR.AlexanderP.A. (1991, April). Skill, will, and thrill: Factors in adults' text comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
17.
GarnerR.HansisR. (1994). Literacy practices outside of school: Adults' beliefs and their responses to “street text.” In GarnerR.AlexanderP.A. (Eds.), Beliefs about text and about instruction with text (pp. 57–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
GuzzettiB.HyndC. (1998). Perspectives on conceptual change.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
GuzzettiB.J.SnyderT.E.GlassG.V.GamasW.S. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.
20.
HassR.G.LinderD.E. (1972). Counterargument availability and the effect of message structure on persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 219–233.
21.
HidiS. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549–571.
22.
HilyardD. (1966). One-sided vs. two-sided messages: An experiment in counter-conditioning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
23.
HyndC.R. (1999, April). Refutational text and the change process. In AlexanderP. A.Chair, Seeking common ground: Exploring the bonds between conceptual change and persuasion theory and research. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, Montreal.
24.
HyndC.AlvermannD.QianG. (1997). Preservice elementary school teachers' conceptual change about projectile motion: Refutation text, demonstration, affective factors, and relevance. Science Education, 81, 1–27.
25.
HyndC.R.GuzzettiB.J. (1998). When knowledge contradicts intuition: Conceptual change. In HyndC.R. (Ed.) Learning from texts across conceptual domains (pp. 139–163). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
HyndC.McWhorterY.PharesV.SuttlesW. (1994). The role of instructional variables in conceptual change in high school physics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 933–946.
27.
JacksonS.AllenM. (1987, May). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided argumentation. Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, Montreal.
28.
JohnsonB.T. (1994). Effects of outcome-relevant involvement and prior information on persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 556–579.
29.
JonesR.A.BrehmJ.W. (1970). Persuasion of one- and two-sided communications as a function of awareness there are two sides. Journal of experimental School Psychology, 6, 47–56.
30.
KardashC-A.M.ScholesR.J. (1995). Effects of preexisting beliefs, epistemo-logical beliefs, and need for cognition on interpretation of controversial issues. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 260–271.
31.
KirkR.E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Brooks & Cole.
32.
KrugD.DavisD.K.GloverJ.A. (1990). Massed versus distributed repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 366–371.
33.
LangerJ.A. (1980). Relation between levels of prior knowledge and the organization of recall. In KamilM.L.MoeA.J. (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction (pp. 28–33). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference.
34.
LordC.G.RossL.LepperM.R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 231–241.
35.
McCroskeyJ.C.YountT.J.ScottM.D. (1972). The effects of message sidedness and evidence on inoculation against counterpersuasion in small group communication. Speech Monographs, 29, 261–271.
36.
ManfredoM.J.BrightA.D. (1991). A model for assessing the effects of communication and recreationists. Journal of Leisure Research, 23 (1), 1–20.
37.
MillerG.R. (1980). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In RoloffM.E.MillerG.R. (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 11–28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38.
MurphyP.K. (1998a, December). Reconceptualizing persuasion: Reader-determined versus expert-determined notions of persuasion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
39.
MurphyP.K. (1998b). Toward a multifaceted model of persuasion: Exploring textual and learner interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
40.
MurphyP.K.AlexanderP.A. (1999). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process. Manuscript submitted for publication.
41.
PettyR.E.CacioppoJ.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.New York: Springer-Verlag.
42.
PosnerG.J.StrikeK.A.HewsonP.W.GertzogW.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 67, 489–508.
43.
SlusherS.P.AndersonC.A. (1996). Using causal persuasive arguments to changes beliefs and teach new information: The mediating role of explanation availability and evaluation bias in the acceptance of knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 110–122.
44.
StanovichK.E.WestR.F. (1997). Reasoning independently of prior belief and individual differences in actively open-minded thinking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 342–357.
45.
StevensJ. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ThomasC.G.WebbE.K. (1994). From orality to rhetoric: An intellectual transformation. In WorthingtonI. (Ed.), Persuasion: Greek rhetoric in action (pp. 3–25). New York: Routledge.
48.
ToulminS.E. (1958). The uses of argument.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
VosniadouS. (1994). Capturing and modeling the processes of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 45–69.
50.
WalshD. (1997, February 28). Forget educational “reform.”The Washington Post, p. A21.
51.
WoodsB.S. (1999, April). Separated at birth: The shared lineage of research on conceptual change and persuasion. In AlexanderP. A.ChairSeeking common ground: Exploring the bonds between conceptual change and persuasion theory and research. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Association, Montreal.
52.
ZoglinR. (1996, February). Chips ahoy. Time, 147, pp. 58–62.
