Readers confronted with unfamiliar and controversial scientific debates tend to rely on simple heuristics such as the perceived plausibility to focus their cognitive resources on specific information during comprehension. In the present experiment, we tested the assumption that plausibility judgments as an integral part of comprehension are used as a simple heuristic to distribute cognitive resources to controversial texts, leading to a better comprehension of information judged as plausible. To experimentally vary perceived plausibility, participants (N = 54 university students) watched one of two video versions on the controversy of spider silk. The videos provided identical factual information but took opposing argumentative claims on the issue (pro vs. con). Afterward, participants read two conflicting texts (pro vs. con) on the same issue. Plausibility judgments and comprehension for the texts were assessed. In line with the hypothesized mediation model, results revealed that the belief manipulation (i.e., the video versions) affected the perceived plausibility of the controversial texts, which in turn influenced the comprehension of the two texts. The effect of the belief-manipulation, that is, participants' better comprehension of the text that took the same argumentative stance as the video, was fully mediated by perceived plausibility. These results are relevant for educational interventions to improve the comprehension of controversial but unfamiliar scientific studies and for theories on the role of plausibility in (multiple) text comprehension.