日常生活中以证据为基础的科学思维和决策。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Caitlin Dawson, Hanna Julku, Milla Pihlajamäki, Johanna K Kaakinen, Jonathan W Schooler, Jaana Simola
{"title":"日常生活中以证据为基础的科学思维和决策。","authors":"Caitlin Dawson, Hanna Julku, Milla Pihlajamäki, Johanna K Kaakinen, Jonathan W Schooler, Jaana Simola","doi":"10.1186/s41235-024-00578-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In today's knowledge economy, it is critical to make decisions based on high-quality evidence. Science-related decision-making is thought to rely on a complex interplay of reasoning skills, cognitive styles, attitudes, and motivations toward information. By investigating the relationship between individual differences and behaviors related to evidence-based decision-making, our aim was to better understand how adults engage with scientific information in everyday life. First, we used a data-driven exploratory approach to identify four latent factors in a large set of measures related to cognitive skills and epistemic attitudes. The resulting structure suggests that key factors include curiosity and positive attitudes toward science, prosociality, cognitive skills, and openmindedness to new information. Second, we investigated whether these factors predicted behavior in a naturalistic decision-making task. In the task, participants were introduced to a real science-related petition and were asked to read six online articles related to the petition, which varied in scientific quality, while deciding how to vote. We demonstrate that curiosity and positive science attitudes, cognitive flexibility, prosociality and emotional states, were related to engaging with information and discernment of evidence reliability. We further found that that social authority is a powerful cue for source credibility, even above the actual quality and relevance of the sources. Our results highlight that individual motivating factors toward information engagement, like curiosity, and social factors such as social authority are important drivers of how adults judge the credibility of everyday sources of scientific information.</p>","PeriodicalId":46827,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","volume":"9 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306497/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Dawson, Hanna Julku, Milla Pihlajamäki, Johanna K Kaakinen, Jonathan W Schooler, Jaana Simola\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s41235-024-00578-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In today's knowledge economy, it is critical to make decisions based on high-quality evidence. Science-related decision-making is thought to rely on a complex interplay of reasoning skills, cognitive styles, attitudes, and motivations toward information. By investigating the relationship between individual differences and behaviors related to evidence-based decision-making, our aim was to better understand how adults engage with scientific information in everyday life. First, we used a data-driven exploratory approach to identify four latent factors in a large set of measures related to cognitive skills and epistemic attitudes. The resulting structure suggests that key factors include curiosity and positive attitudes toward science, prosociality, cognitive skills, and openmindedness to new information. Second, we investigated whether these factors predicted behavior in a naturalistic decision-making task. In the task, participants were introduced to a real science-related petition and were asked to read six online articles related to the petition, which varied in scientific quality, while deciding how to vote. We demonstrate that curiosity and positive science attitudes, cognitive flexibility, prosociality and emotional states, were related to engaging with information and discernment of evidence reliability. We further found that that social authority is a powerful cue for source credibility, even above the actual quality and relevance of the sources. Our results highlight that individual motivating factors toward information engagement, like curiosity, and social factors such as social authority are important drivers of how adults judge the credibility of everyday sources of scientific information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11306497/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00578-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Research-Principles and Implications","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00578-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在当今的知识经济时代,根据高质量的证据做出决策至关重要。与科学相关的决策被认为依赖于推理技能、认知风格、态度和对信息的动机等复杂的相互作用。通过研究个体差异与循证决策相关行为之间的关系,我们的目的是更好地了解成年人在日常生活中是如何接触科学信息的。首先,我们采用数据驱动的探索性方法,在大量与认知技能和认识态度相关的测量中识别出四个潜在因素。由此得出的结构表明,关键因素包括对科学的好奇心和积极态度、亲社会性、认知技能和对新信息的开放性。其次,我们研究了这些因素是否能预测自然决策任务中的行为。在这个任务中,参与者被介绍给一个真实的与科学有关的请愿书,并被要求阅读六篇与请愿书有关的在线文章,这些文章的科学质量各不相同,同时决定如何投票。我们证明,好奇心和积极的科学态度、认知灵活性、亲社会性和情绪状态与参与信息和辨别证据可靠性有关。我们进一步发现,社会权威是信息来源可信度的有力线索,甚至高于信息来源的实际质量和相关性。我们的研究结果突出表明,个人参与信息的动机因素(如好奇心)和社会因素(如社会权威)是成年人判断日常科学信息来源可信度的重要驱动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life.

In today's knowledge economy, it is critical to make decisions based on high-quality evidence. Science-related decision-making is thought to rely on a complex interplay of reasoning skills, cognitive styles, attitudes, and motivations toward information. By investigating the relationship between individual differences and behaviors related to evidence-based decision-making, our aim was to better understand how adults engage with scientific information in everyday life. First, we used a data-driven exploratory approach to identify four latent factors in a large set of measures related to cognitive skills and epistemic attitudes. The resulting structure suggests that key factors include curiosity and positive attitudes toward science, prosociality, cognitive skills, and openmindedness to new information. Second, we investigated whether these factors predicted behavior in a naturalistic decision-making task. In the task, participants were introduced to a real science-related petition and were asked to read six online articles related to the petition, which varied in scientific quality, while deciding how to vote. We demonstrate that curiosity and positive science attitudes, cognitive flexibility, prosociality and emotional states, were related to engaging with information and discernment of evidence reliability. We further found that that social authority is a powerful cue for source credibility, even above the actual quality and relevance of the sources. Our results highlight that individual motivating factors toward information engagement, like curiosity, and social factors such as social authority are important drivers of how adults judge the credibility of everyday sources of scientific information.

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
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
7.30%
发文量
96
审稿时长
25 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