Text-belief consistency effect in L2 students’ integrated written representations based on multiple conflicting sources: Comparisons across summary vs. argumentation task instructions

Abstract

Previous research indicates that readers’ prior beliefs bias comprehension of conflicting sources and the ensuing representations developed. Against this background, this study investigated how participants’ pre-existing beliefs affect their written representations based on conflicting texts about a well-established controversy. More specifically, adopting a 2 × 2 mixed GLM design and using a series of statistical procedures, the study investigated the propositional content and perspectives that L2 reader-writers adopted in their written representations based on controversial sources across summary vs. argumentation task instruction conditions. The study further investigated the participants’ emotional reactions to the conflicting texts. Results showed that perspectives that participants adopted in their written representations and the propositional content therein were biased towards their prior beliefs. Additionally, the results showed an interaction effect for task instruction and propositional content in the representations. More specifically, the argumentation task showed less of a balance in positively-biased and negatively-biased propositional content than the summary task, although attenuated by the absence of significant cross-condition differences. Furthermore, significant differences were found in the participants’ emotional reactions to the conflicting texts. Moderating effects were also found for curiosity and confusion experienced in relation to the pro-stance texts and the propositional content of the integrated representations.