# An exploratory study of topic-specific variation in epistemic beliefs among psychology students

## TL;DR

This study shows that psychology students' beliefs about knowledge vary depending on the specific topic they're considering, not just the general area of psychology.

## Contribution

The study demonstrates that epistemic beliefs vary by specific topic characteristics, not subdisciplinary labels.

## Key findings

- Epistemic beliefs of students significantly differ across specific topics like depression, schizophrenia, and language acquisition.
- Students showed higher absolutism and lower evaluativism when reasoning about schizophrenia compared to other topics.
- Topic-specific characteristics, not subdisciplinary labels, drive variation in epistemic beliefs.

## Abstract

How individuals conceive knowledge and knowing plays a crucial role in psychology education. While often examined at the domain level, the Theory of Integrated Domains in Epistemology (TIDE) suggests that epistemic beliefs may also vary at the level of specific topics.

We investigated whether epistemic beliefs of psychology students differ depending on the topic under consideration and tested the hypothesis that beliefs would cluster by subdisciplinary proximity (i.e., clinical vs. cognitive topics). Using the Epistemic Thinking Assessment (ETA), we implemented three scenarios addressing depression, schizophrenia, and language acquisition. A counterbalanced repeated-measures design was used with 480 first-year psychology students. Multilevel modeling was applied to distinguish topic effects from sequence effects.

Results indicated significant variation in epistemic beliefs across topics, leading to the rejection of the subdisciplinary hypothesis. Students scored significantly higher on absolutism and lower on evaluativism when reasoning about schizophrenia compared to depression and language acquisition. Thus, the two clinical topics did not elicit similar profiles.

Findings confirm that epistemic beliefs are topic-specific within psychology and are driven by topic characteristics (e.g., perceived biological certainty) rather than disciplinary labels. These results highlight the need for granular, topic-specific approaches in epistemological assessments and critical thinking instruction.