Differences in epistemic justification profiles during conflicting socio-scientific information processing: A study...

How individuals process and understand controversial scientific issues with social implications has been linked to their beliefs about epistemic justification, which concern how knowledge claims can be justified. In this study, we used cluster analysis to classify undergraduate and graduate students (n = 46) based on their beliefs about epistemic justification and eye tracking to investigate how profiles of epistemic justification differed when processing and representing information about a particular socio-scientific issue. It was found that one cluster predominantly relied on justification by multiple sources, whereas two other clusters combined reliance on justification by multiple sources with either reliance on personal justification or justification by authority. When these three clusters were compared while reading conflicting information about a controversial socio-scientific issue, multiple heat-map analysis and lag sequential analysis of eye movement data indicated that participants who predominantly relied on justification by multiple sources displayed a more balanced and integrative processing pattern than participants in the two other groups. Further, the cluster characterized by strong, unique beliefs in justification by multiple sources represented conflicting information in a more balanced way in written accounts of the issue. This study provides new insights into the role of beliefs about epistemic justification when learners encounter conflicting information about a controversial socio-scientific issue that have both theoretical and educational implications.