水信息科学来源的优先顺序:效果、知识、信仰和政治认同

Sadie Hundemer
{"title":"水信息科学来源的优先顺序:效果、知识、信仰和政治认同","authors":"Sadie Hundemer","doi":"10.4148/1051-0834.2495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Scientists are reported to be more trusted than other information sources; yet, on essential water facts, people sometimes reject what they perceive water scientists to believe in favor of other belief determinants. This study examines the factors that affect the difference in people's stated willingness to reconsider their water beliefs in response to information provided by scientists relative to information provided by other sources. Regression analysis of responses provided by 806 Florida and Georgia residents found water science knowledge to be a consistently strong influencer of the gap in reliance on scientific information providers relative to other sources. This result is notable given criticisms of the knowledge deficit model. Pre-existing water beliefs had varying levels of influence, and political identity, which might have functioned as a decision heuristic, had little statistically significant effect. The study additionally found water science knowledge and water beliefs to not be strongly related. Higher scores on a water science knowledge assessment were not necessarily an indicator of accurate and knowledge-congruent water beliefs. Moreover, scientific water knowledge and water beliefs had different effects on participants’ reliance on scientific information sources.","PeriodicalId":33763,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Communications","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prioritization of Scientific Sources of Water Information: The Effect Knowledge, Beliefs, and Political Identity\",\"authors\":\"Sadie Hundemer\",\"doi\":\"10.4148/1051-0834.2495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Scientists are reported to be more trusted than other information sources; yet, on essential water facts, people sometimes reject what they perceive water scientists to believe in favor of other belief determinants. This study examines the factors that affect the difference in people's stated willingness to reconsider their water beliefs in response to information provided by scientists relative to information provided by other sources. Regression analysis of responses provided by 806 Florida and Georgia residents found water science knowledge to be a consistently strong influencer of the gap in reliance on scientific information providers relative to other sources. This result is notable given criticisms of the knowledge deficit model. Pre-existing water beliefs had varying levels of influence, and political identity, which might have functioned as a decision heuristic, had little statistically significant effect. The study additionally found water science knowledge and water beliefs to not be strongly related. Higher scores on a water science knowledge assessment were not necessarily an indicator of accurate and knowledge-congruent water beliefs. Moreover, scientific water knowledge and water beliefs had different effects on participants’ reliance on scientific information sources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Communications\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2495\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4148/1051-0834.2495","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

据报道,科学家比其他信息来源更值得信任;然而,在基本的水事实上,人们有时会拒绝他们认为水科学家所相信的,而支持其他信念决定因素。本研究考察了影响人们根据科学家提供的信息与其他来源提供的信息所表示的重新考虑其水信仰的意愿差异的因素。对806名佛罗里达州和佐治亚州居民提供的回复进行回归分析发现,相对于其他来源,水科学知识一直是对科学信息提供者依赖程度差距的强烈影响因素。鉴于对知识赤字模型的批评,这一结果是值得注意的。先前存在的水信仰具有不同程度的影响,而政治认同可能具有决策启发式的功能,在统计上几乎没有显著影响。该研究还发现,水科学知识和水信仰并没有很强的相关性。更高的水科学知识评估分数不一定是准确和知识一致的水信念的指标。此外,科学水知识和水信念对被试对科学信息来源的依赖有不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Prioritization of Scientific Sources of Water Information: The Effect Knowledge, Beliefs, and Political Identity
Scientists are reported to be more trusted than other information sources; yet, on essential water facts, people sometimes reject what they perceive water scientists to believe in favor of other belief determinants. This study examines the factors that affect the difference in people's stated willingness to reconsider their water beliefs in response to information provided by scientists relative to information provided by other sources. Regression analysis of responses provided by 806 Florida and Georgia residents found water science knowledge to be a consistently strong influencer of the gap in reliance on scientific information providers relative to other sources. This result is notable given criticisms of the knowledge deficit model. Pre-existing water beliefs had varying levels of influence, and political identity, which might have functioned as a decision heuristic, had little statistically significant effect. The study additionally found water science knowledge and water beliefs to not be strongly related. Higher scores on a water science knowledge assessment were not necessarily an indicator of accurate and knowledge-congruent water beliefs. Moreover, scientific water knowledge and water beliefs had different effects on participants’ reliance on scientific information sources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
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