通过科学无能借口对科学打折扣的个人和特定情况因素。

IF 1.8 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Europes Journal of Psychology Pub Date : 2021-11-30 eCollection Date: 2021-11-01 DOI:10.5964/ejop.3735
Tom Rosman, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Oliver Wedderhoff
{"title":"通过科学无能借口对科学打折扣的个人和特定情况因素。","authors":"Tom Rosman, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Oliver Wedderhoff","doi":"10.5964/ejop.3735","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Munro (2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x) found that individuals, when confronted with belief-disconfirming scientific evidence, resist this information by concluding that the topic at hand is not amenable to scientific investigation-a scientific impotence excuse. We strived to replicate this finding and to extend this work by analyzing other factors that might lead to scientific impotence excuses. As a person-specific factor, we analyzed the role of epistemic beliefs, and as a situational factor, we focused on the contradictoriness of the evidence at hand. Three sets of hypotheses were preregistered. In an experimental 2 × 3 online study drawing on a general population sample of N = 901 participants, we first assessed our participants' prior beliefs on the effects of acupuncture versus massaging (pro acupuncture vs. no opinion). One experimental group then read fictitious empirical evidence claiming superiority of acupuncture, another group read evidence speaking against acupuncture, and a third group read conflicting evidence (i.e., a mix of pro- and contra-findings). Scientific impotence excuses were measured by a newly developed questionnaire. Our first hypothesis, which suggested that participants believing in the superiority of acupuncture would make stronger scientific impotence excuses when confronted with belief-disconfirming findings, was confirmed. A second hypothesis suggested that scientific impotence excuses would be stronger when individuals were confronted with evidence exhibiting a \"nature\" that contradicts their topic-specific epistemic beliefs. This hypothesis was partially supported. A third hypothesis suggested that individuals confronted with conflicting evidence would make stronger scientific impotence excuses, and this was again confirmed. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47113,"journal":{"name":"Europes Journal of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8768467/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Person- and Situation-Specific Factors in Discounting Science via Scientific Impotence Excuses.\",\"authors\":\"Tom Rosman, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Oliver Wedderhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.5964/ejop.3735\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Munro (2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x) found that individuals, when confronted with belief-disconfirming scientific evidence, resist this information by concluding that the topic at hand is not amenable to scientific investigation-a scientific impotence excuse. We strived to replicate this finding and to extend this work by analyzing other factors that might lead to scientific impotence excuses. As a person-specific factor, we analyzed the role of epistemic beliefs, and as a situational factor, we focused on the contradictoriness of the evidence at hand. Three sets of hypotheses were preregistered. In an experimental 2 × 3 online study drawing on a general population sample of N = 901 participants, we first assessed our participants' prior beliefs on the effects of acupuncture versus massaging (pro acupuncture vs. no opinion). One experimental group then read fictitious empirical evidence claiming superiority of acupuncture, another group read evidence speaking against acupuncture, and a third group read conflicting evidence (i.e., a mix of pro- and contra-findings). Scientific impotence excuses were measured by a newly developed questionnaire. Our first hypothesis, which suggested that participants believing in the superiority of acupuncture would make stronger scientific impotence excuses when confronted with belief-disconfirming findings, was confirmed. A second hypothesis suggested that scientific impotence excuses would be stronger when individuals were confronted with evidence exhibiting a \\\"nature\\\" that contradicts their topic-specific epistemic beliefs. This hypothesis was partially supported. A third hypothesis suggested that individuals confronted with conflicting evidence would make stronger scientific impotence excuses, and this was again confirmed. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Europes Journal of Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8768467/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Europes Journal of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.3735\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europes Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.3735","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

芒罗(Munro)(2010,https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x)发现,当个人面对信念不坚定的科学证据时,他们会通过得出结论认为手头的话题不适合科学调查来抵制这些信息--这就是科学无能的借口。我们努力复制这一发现,并通过分析可能导致科学无能借口的其他因素来扩展这项工作。作为个人特定因素,我们分析了认识论信念的作用;作为情境因素,我们关注了手头证据的矛盾性。我们预先注册了三组假设。在一项 2 × 3 在线实验研究中,我们首先评估了参与者之前对针灸与按摩效果的看法(支持针灸与不支持针灸)。然后,一个实验组阅读了声称针灸具有优越性的虚构经验证据,另一个实验组阅读了反对针灸的证据,第三个实验组阅读了相互矛盾的证据(即赞成和反对的混合结论)。科学的阳痿借口是通过新开发的问卷来测量的。我们提出的第一个假设得到了证实,即相信针灸具有优越性的参与者在面对不相信针灸的研究结果时会提出更多的科学性阳痿借口。第二个假设认为,当个体面对的证据的 "性质 "与其特定主题的认识论信念相矛盾时,他们会更强烈地为科学无能找借口。这一假设得到了部分支持。第三个假设认为,面对相互矛盾的证据,个人会做出更有力的科学无能借口,这一假设再次得到证实。本文讨论了这一假设对理论和实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Person- and Situation-Specific Factors in Discounting Science via Scientific Impotence Excuses.

Person- and Situation-Specific Factors in Discounting Science via Scientific Impotence Excuses.

Person- and Situation-Specific Factors in Discounting Science via Scientific Impotence Excuses.

Munro (2010, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x) found that individuals, when confronted with belief-disconfirming scientific evidence, resist this information by concluding that the topic at hand is not amenable to scientific investigation-a scientific impotence excuse. We strived to replicate this finding and to extend this work by analyzing other factors that might lead to scientific impotence excuses. As a person-specific factor, we analyzed the role of epistemic beliefs, and as a situational factor, we focused on the contradictoriness of the evidence at hand. Three sets of hypotheses were preregistered. In an experimental 2 × 3 online study drawing on a general population sample of N = 901 participants, we first assessed our participants' prior beliefs on the effects of acupuncture versus massaging (pro acupuncture vs. no opinion). One experimental group then read fictitious empirical evidence claiming superiority of acupuncture, another group read evidence speaking against acupuncture, and a third group read conflicting evidence (i.e., a mix of pro- and contra-findings). Scientific impotence excuses were measured by a newly developed questionnaire. Our first hypothesis, which suggested that participants believing in the superiority of acupuncture would make stronger scientific impotence excuses when confronted with belief-disconfirming findings, was confirmed. A second hypothesis suggested that scientific impotence excuses would be stronger when individuals were confronted with evidence exhibiting a "nature" that contradicts their topic-specific epistemic beliefs. This hypothesis was partially supported. A third hypothesis suggested that individuals confronted with conflicting evidence would make stronger scientific impotence excuses, and this was again confirmed. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

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
Europes Journal of Psychology
Europes Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
审稿时长
31 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