科学推理能力的校准

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Caitlin Drummond Otten, Baruch Fischhoff
{"title":"科学推理能力的校准","authors":"Caitlin Drummond Otten,&nbsp;Baruch Fischhoff","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scientific reasoning ability, the ability to reason critically about the quality of scientific evidence, can help laypeople use scientific evidence when making judgments and decisions. We ask whether individuals with greater scientific reasoning ability are also better calibrated with respect to their ability, comparing calibration for skill with the more widely studied calibration for knowledge. In three studies, participants (Study 1: <i>N</i> = 1022; Study 2: <i>N</i> = 101; and Study 3: <i>N</i> = 332) took the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; Drummond &amp; Fischhoff, 2017), comprised of 11 true–false problems, and provided confidence ratings for each problem. Overall, participants were overconfident, reporting mean confidence levels that were 22.4–25% higher than their percentages of correct answers; calibration improved with score. Study 2 found similar calibration patterns for the SRS and another skill, the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), measuring the ability to avoid intuitive but incorrect answers. SRS and CRT scores were both associated with success at avoiding negative decision outcomes, as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory; confidence on the SRS, above and beyond scores, predicted worse outcomes. Study 3 added an alternative measure of calibration, asking participants to estimate the number of items answered correctly. Participants were less overconfident by this measure. SRS scores predicted correct usage of scientific information in a drug facts box task and holding beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus on controversial issues; confidence, above and beyond SRS scores, predicted worse drug facts box performance but stronger science-consistent beliefs. We discuss the implications of our findings for improving science-relevant decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2306","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibration of scientific reasoning ability\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin Drummond Otten,&nbsp;Baruch Fischhoff\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bdm.2306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Scientific reasoning ability, the ability to reason critically about the quality of scientific evidence, can help laypeople use scientific evidence when making judgments and decisions. We ask whether individuals with greater scientific reasoning ability are also better calibrated with respect to their ability, comparing calibration for skill with the more widely studied calibration for knowledge. In three studies, participants (Study 1: <i>N</i> = 1022; Study 2: <i>N</i> = 101; and Study 3: <i>N</i> = 332) took the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; Drummond &amp; Fischhoff, 2017), comprised of 11 true–false problems, and provided confidence ratings for each problem. Overall, participants were overconfident, reporting mean confidence levels that were 22.4–25% higher than their percentages of correct answers; calibration improved with score. Study 2 found similar calibration patterns for the SRS and another skill, the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), measuring the ability to avoid intuitive but incorrect answers. SRS and CRT scores were both associated with success at avoiding negative decision outcomes, as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory; confidence on the SRS, above and beyond scores, predicted worse outcomes. Study 3 added an alternative measure of calibration, asking participants to estimate the number of items answered correctly. Participants were less overconfident by this measure. SRS scores predicted correct usage of scientific information in a drug facts box task and holding beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus on controversial issues; confidence, above and beyond SRS scores, predicted worse drug facts box performance but stronger science-consistent beliefs. We discuss the implications of our findings for improving science-relevant decision-making.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2306\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2306\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2306","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

科学推理能力,即对科学证据的质量进行批判性推理的能力,可以帮助外行人在做出判断和决策时使用科学证据。我们将技能校准与更广泛研究的知识校准进行比较,询问具有更强科学推理能力的个体是否也能更好地校准他们的能力。在三项研究中,参与者(研究1:N = 1022;研究2:N = 101;研究3:N = 332)采用科学推理量表(SRS;德拉蒙德,Fischhoff, 2017),由11个真假问题组成,并为每个问题提供信心评级。总体而言,参与者过于自信,报告的平均自信水平比他们正确答案的百分比高22.4-25%;校正随评分而改善。研究2发现,SRS和另一项技能——认知反射测试(CRT)——也存在类似的校准模式,该测试衡量的是避免直觉但错误答案的能力。SRS和CRT得分都与成功避免负面决策结果有关,这是由决策结果清单衡量的;对SRS的信心,高于分数,预示着更糟糕的结果。研究3增加了另一种校准方法,要求参与者估计正确回答的项目数量。通过这一衡量标准,参与者没有那么过度自信。SRS得分预测了在药物事实箱任务中科学信息的正确使用以及在争议问题上持有与科学共识一致的信念;信心,高于SRS分数,预示着更糟糕的药物事实箱表现,但更强的科学一致的信念。我们讨论了我们的发现对改善科学相关决策的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Calibration of scientific reasoning ability

Calibration of scientific reasoning ability

Scientific reasoning ability, the ability to reason critically about the quality of scientific evidence, can help laypeople use scientific evidence when making judgments and decisions. We ask whether individuals with greater scientific reasoning ability are also better calibrated with respect to their ability, comparing calibration for skill with the more widely studied calibration for knowledge. In three studies, participants (Study 1: N = 1022; Study 2: N = 101; and Study 3: N = 332) took the Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017), comprised of 11 true–false problems, and provided confidence ratings for each problem. Overall, participants were overconfident, reporting mean confidence levels that were 22.4–25% higher than their percentages of correct answers; calibration improved with score. Study 2 found similar calibration patterns for the SRS and another skill, the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT), measuring the ability to avoid intuitive but incorrect answers. SRS and CRT scores were both associated with success at avoiding negative decision outcomes, as measured by the Decision Outcomes Inventory; confidence on the SRS, above and beyond scores, predicted worse outcomes. Study 3 added an alternative measure of calibration, asking participants to estimate the number of items answered correctly. Participants were less overconfident by this measure. SRS scores predicted correct usage of scientific information in a drug facts box task and holding beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus on controversial issues; confidence, above and beyond SRS scores, predicted worse drug facts box performance but stronger science-consistent beliefs. We discuss the implications of our findings for improving science-relevant decision-making.

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
4.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.
×
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