One-hundred and twenty-two undergraduates completed a survey assessing beliefs that WM is a stable trait, or that it is quality that can be improved with skill training. They then read an authentic set of journal articles in a special issue, which discussed whether a program called CogMed is or is not effective in promoting WM functioning. Students evaluated the usefulness of the articles for understanding the issue and justified their decisions. Students believing that WM is malleable evaluated articles questioning CogMed's effectiveness as less useful, and one recognizing its promise as more useful. They were also less likely to question the quality of methods used in pro-CogMed articles. Students believing that WM is a fixed trait, however, evaluated belief-inconsistent articles more critically as uninteresting, task-irrelevant, having poorer-quality argumentation, and having less trustworthy authors. Limitations and future directions of the current work are discussed.