{"title":"有多少证据就足够了?科学结论判断中的偏差阈值","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":48014,"journal":{"name":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","volume":"45 1","pages":"25 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":48014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Basic and Applied Social Psychology\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"25 - 37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Basic and Applied Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2023.2177542\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2023.2177542","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
How Much Evidence Is Enough? Biased Thresholds in Judgments of Scientific Conclusions
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.
期刊介绍:
Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) emphasizes the publication of outstanding research articles, but also considers literature reviews, criticism, and methodological or theoretical statements spanning the entire range of social psychological issues. The journal will publish basic work in areas of social psychology that can be applied to societal problems, as well as direct application of social psychology to such problems. The journal provides a venue for a broad range of specialty areas, including research on legal and political issues, environmental influences on behavior, organizations, aging, medical and health-related outcomes, sexuality, education and learning, the effects of mass media, gender issues, and population problems.