Investigating professed and enacted epistemic beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge when students evaluate scientific controversies
Open accessAbstract
Prior research on epistemic beliefs, that is, individuals’ views about knowledge and knowing, has mainly focused either on individuals’ professed beliefs (as reported in questionnaires) or on their enacted beliefs (as indicated during task processing). However, little is known about the relation between professed and enacted epistemic beliefs. The present study focused on beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and investigated both professed and enacted beliefs in the context of evaluations of scientific controversies. Participants were N = 79 university students who first completed a questionnaire that targeted their professed uncertainty beliefs about scientific knowledge. Then, approximately 1 week later, they completed a standardized test in which they evaluated five scientific controversies. Cued retrospective verbal reports were used to measure their enacted uncertainty beliefs while taking the test. Results revealed that professed and enacted uncertainty beliefs were interrelated and that both variables predicted individuals’ performance with regard to the evaluation of scientific controversies. Furthermore, the effect of professed uncertainty beliefs on controversy-evaluation performance was partly mediated by enacted uncertainty beliefs. The findings of the present study point toward novel theoretical insights and educational implications regarding the relations between professed and enacted beliefs about the uncertainty of scientific knowledge and their role in individuals’ evaluation of scientific controversies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Higher metacognitive bias is associated with difficulties in reasoning about controversies.
“Additionally, research has shown that higher metacognitive bias is associated with a greater likelihood of making errors when dealing with inaccuracies in texts (Salovich & Rapp, 2021), difficulties in reasoning about controversies (Lang et al., 2021), and greater resistance to correcting misinformed beliefs (Rapp & Withall, 2024).”
From “ <scp>ChatGPT</scp> can make mistakes. Check important info.” Epistemic beliefs and metacognitive accuracy in students' integration of <scp>ChatGPT</scp> content into academic writing (2025) · cites this paper as Lang et al., 2021
Cites
Epistemological Understanding as a Metacognitive Process: Thinking Aloud During Online Searching
Hofer, B. K. (2004) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3901_5 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., Strømsø, H. I., & Rouet, J.-F. (2011) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.538647 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement.
Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., & Duke, R. F. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000263 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Epistemic metacognition in context: evaluating and learning online information
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-009-9048-2 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Kammerer, Y., Bråten, I., Gerjets, P., & Strømsø, H. I. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.012 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Urban, M., Brom, C., Lukavský, J., Děchtěrenko, F., Hein, V., Svacha, F., Kmoníčková, P., & Urban, K. (2025) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13591 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lang, F., Kammerer, Y., Stürmer, K., & Gerjets, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Tübingen (DE)
- Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lang, Fabian
- Venue
- European Journal of Psychology of Education
- Published
- 2020-03-16
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 125-146
- ISSN
- 0256-2928 (ISSN-L)
- 1878-5174
- OpenAlex
- W3012499095
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 3.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Psychology of Education (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
- Keywords
- epistemological beliefs, scientific knowledge, scientific controversy, university students, mediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review