This study investigated the impact of readers' prior beliefs and level of in-group identification on the comprehension of controversial texts. Psychology students from a university that is known for its specialisation on psychoanalysis in clinical psychology read two controversial texts on the issue of whether cognitive behavioural therapy or psychoanalysis is more effective. Participants' beliefs and their in-group identification were assessed before reading and comprehension was assessed with a verification task. Results revealed a better comprehension of the belief-consistent text for high identifiers -- regardless of whether this text was socially affirming or socially threatening. Low identifiers favouring psychoanalysis exhibited weak situation models for both texts, whereas a stronger comprehension for the social-affirming text was found for low identifiers favouring cognitive behavioural therapy. These results suggest that readers' beliefs and their level of in-group identification with a relevant social group are both sources for a biased comprehension of social scientific issues. Highlights What is already known about this topic when confronted with conflicting information, readers have a weaker memory for belief-inconsistent compared with belief-consistent information (belief-consistency effect).A defensive mechanism used by readers to avoid and reduce inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance is selective exposure, which can occur on the personal level (i.e., avoiding belief-inconsistent information) and also on the social level (i.e., avoiding socially threatening information).