Reconciling divergent accounts is a metacognitive task of a high order. It entails deep thinking about the thought processes of other people, as represented in multiple accounts that may be at odds with one another and with one’s own ideas. Here I emphasize the epistemological foundations of such attempts to understand other people’s thinking as well as the conceptual and strategic aspects of not just the skill but also the disposition to represent, connect, evaluate, compare deeply, and seek to reconcile explanatory accounts of both simple and complex phenomena. Development of multivariable mental models is a key contributor, and continuing engagement and exercise are essential to foster proficiency.
BarzilaiS.Eshet-AlkalaiY. (2015). The role of epistemic perspectives in comprehension of multiple author viewpoints. Learning and Instruction, 36, 86–103.
2.
BarzilaiS.Ka’adanI. (2017). Learning to integrate divergent information sources: The interplay of epistemic cognition and epistemic metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 12, 193–232.
3.
BarzilaiS.ZoharA. (2012). Epistemic thinking in action: Evaluating and integrating online sources. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 39–85.
4.
BerlandL. K.SchwarzC. V.KristC.KenyonL.LoA. S.ReiserB. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1082–1112.
5.
BråtenI.BrittM. A.StrømsøH. I.RouetJ.-F. (2011). The role of epistemic beliefs in the comprehension of multiple expository texts: Toward an integrated model. Educational Psychologist, 46, 48–70.
6.
BråtenI.StrømsøH. I. (2009). Effects of task instruction and personal epistemology on the understanding of multiple texts about climate change. Discourse Processes, 47, 1–31.
7.
BrittM. A.RouetJ.-F.BlaumD.MillisK. (2019). A reasoned approach to dealing with fake news. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 94–101.
8.
BrommeR.PieschlS.StahlE. (2010). Epistemological beliefs are standards for adaptive learning: A functional theory about epistemological beliefs and metacognition. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 7–26.
9.
FernbachP. M.DarlowA.SlomanS. A. (2011). When good evidence goes bad: The weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making. Cognition, 119, 459–467.
10.
FisherM.KnobeJ.StricklandB.KeilF. C. (2017). The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science, 41, 1119–1134.
11.
GreeneJ. A.SandovalW. A.BråtenI. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of epistemic cognition. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
GrotzerT.DerbiszewskaK.SolisS. L. (2017). Leveraging fourth and sixth graders’ experiences to reveal understanding of the forms and features of distributed causality. Cognition and Instruction, 35, 55–87.
13.
IordanouK. (2017). From theory of mind to epistemic cognition. A lifespan perspective. Frontline Learning Research, 4, 106–119.
14.
JohnsonS.ValentiJ. J.KeilF. (2018). Simplicity and complexity preferences in causal explanation: An opponent heuristic account. SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3194761
15.
KelleyH. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In LevineD. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192–238). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
16.
KienhuesD.StadtlerM.BrommeR. (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.
17.
KristC.SchwarzC. V.ReiserB. J. (2019). Identifying essential epistemic heuristics for guiding mechanistic reasoning in science learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28, 160–205.
18.
KuhnD. (2012). The development of causal reasoning. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 327–335. doi:10.1002/wcs.1160
19.
KuhnD. (2019). Critical thinking as discourse. Human Development, 62, 146–164.
20.
KuhnD.ArvidssonT. S.LesperanceR.CorprewR. (2017). Can engaging in science practices promote deep understanding of them?Science Education, 101, 232–250.
21.
KuhnD.CummingsA.YoumansM. (2020). Is reasoning a fruitful path to changing minds?Discourse Processes, 57, 36–47. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2019.1646566
22.
KuhnD.FloydD.YaksickP.HalpernM.RicksW. (2019). How does discourse among like-minded individuals affect their thinking about a complex issue?Thinking & Reasoning, 25, 365–382. doi:10.1080/13546783.2018.1532460
23.
KuhnD.IordanouK. (in press). Why do people argue past one another rather than with one another? In BallantyneN.DunningD. (Eds.), Reason, bias, and inquiry: New perspectives from the crossroads of epistemology and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
KuhnD.PeaseM.WirkalaC. (2009). Coordinating effects of multiple variables: A skill fundamental to causal and scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 268–284.
26.
KuhnD.RamseyS.ArvidssonT. S. (2015). Developing multivariable thinkers. Cognitive Development, 35, 92–110.
27.
KuhnD.ZillmerN.CrowellA.ZavalaJ. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 456–496.
28.
ListA.AlexanderP. (2019). Toward an integrated framework of multiple text use. Educational Psychologist, 54, 20–39. doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1505514
29.
LombrozoT. (2007). Simplicity and probability in causal explanation. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 232–257.
30.
MasonL.BoscoloP. (2004). Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 103–128.
31.
MoshmanD. (2015). Epistemic cognition and development: The psychology of justification and truth. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
32.
RichterT.MaierJ. (2017). Comprehension of multiple documents with conflicting information: A two-step model of validation. Educational Psychologist, 52, 148–166.
33.
RosmanT.MayerA.MerkS.KerwerM. (2019). On the benefits of ‘doing science’: Does integrative writing about scientific controversies foster epistemic beliefs?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 85–101.
34.
SandovalW. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence. Science Education, 89, 634–656.
35.
SchustackM.SternbergR. (1981). Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 101–120.
36.
SlomanS. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
StricklandB.SilverI.KeilF. C. (2017). The texture of causal construals: Domain-specific biases shape causal inferences from discourse. Memory & Cognition, 45, 442–455.
38.
ZavalaJ.KuhnD. (2017). Solitary discourse is a productive activity. Psychological Science, 28, 578–586.
