How Much Evidence Is Enough? Biased Thresholds in Judgments of Scientific Conclusions

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
G. Munro, Ting Huang
{"title":"How Much Evidence Is Enough? Biased Thresholds in Judgments of Scientific Conclusions","authors":"G. Munro, Ting Huang","doi":"10.1080/01973533.2023.2177542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract People are biased in their consumption of scientific information. The current research investigated conclusion thresholds, testing the hypothesis that more scientific evidence is needed to arrive at a non-preferred than a preferred conclusion. Participants read brief summaries of scientific studies exploring the nature of homosexuality (Study 1; N = 126) and air safety that supported either the Democratic or the Republican position on the issue (Study 2; N = 311). Participants read summaries until a conclusion could be made about the evidence. Supporting the hypotheses, participants read fewer study summaries when the results of those studies supported their preferred conclusion than when they did not. Recommendations focus on how the scientific community and science journalism can address this bias.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2023.2177542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract People are biased in their consumption of scientific information. The current research investigated conclusion thresholds, testing the hypothesis that more scientific evidence is needed to arrive at a non-preferred than a preferred conclusion. Participants read brief summaries of scientific studies exploring the nature of homosexuality (Study 1; N = 126) and air safety that supported either the Democratic or the Republican position on the issue (Study 2; N = 311). Participants read summaries until a conclusion could be made about the evidence. Supporting the hypotheses, participants read fewer study summaries when the results of those studies supported their preferred conclusion than when they did not. Recommendations focus on how the scientific community and science journalism can address this bias.
有多少证据就足够了?科学结论判断中的偏差阈值
摘要人们对科学信息的消费有偏见。目前的研究调查了结论阈值,检验了这样一种假设,即需要更多的科学证据才能得出非首选结论而非首选结论。参与者阅读了探索同性恋本质的科学研究的简要摘要(研究1;N = 126)和支持民主党或共和党在该问题上立场的航空安全(研究2;N = 311)。参与者阅读摘要,直到对证据得出结论。支持这些假设的是,当这些研究的结果支持他们的首选结论时,参与者阅读的研究摘要比不支持他们的结论时更少。建议的重点是科学界和科学新闻界如何解决这种偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信