Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty
Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of experimental psychology. General 2017-02, Vol.146 (2), p.286-304 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 304 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 286 |
container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. General |
container_volume | 146 |
creator | Broomell, Stephen B. Kane, Patrick Bodilly |
description | Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evidence that threatens an individual's political ideology is perceived as more uncertain than nonthreatening evidence. The authors present 3 studies examining perceptions of scientific uncertainty more broadly by including sciences that are not politically polarizing. Study 1 develops scales measuring perceptions of scientific uncertainty. It finds (a) 3 perceptual dimensions of scientific uncertainty, with the primary dimension representing a perception of precision; (b) the precision dimension of uncertainty is strongly associated with the perceived value of a research field; and (c) differences in perceived uncertainty across political affiliations. Study 2 manipulated these dimensions, finding that Republicans were more sensitive than Democrats to descriptions of uncertainty associated with a research field (e.g., psychology). Study 3 found that these views of a research field did not extend to the evaluation of individual results produced by the field. Together, these studies show that perceptions of scientific uncertainty associated with entire research fields are valid predictors of abstract perceptions of scientific quality, benefit, and allocation of funding. Yet, they do not inform judgments about individual results. Therefore, polarization in the acceptance of specific results is not likely due to individual differences in perceived scientific uncertainty. Further, the direction of influence potentially could be reversed, such that perceived quality of scientific results could be used to influence perceptions about scientific research fields. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/xge0000260 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1862937063</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4311918131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a380t-67b79d12f528ed61257b1e7eda410860cbeb3df79c0a7af3e5976d4e53bb93333</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0MtKxDAYBeAgio6jGx9ACm5ErCZNmsvChQzeYEBBXYc0_SuR3kxacN7e1PECbjybQPhyCAehA4LPCKbi_P0FcEzG8QaaEUVVmsVsohnGiqeUsXwH7YbwOiEq-TbaySShLGdyhi4exqJ2NnkAb6EfXNcmpi2TRdc0Y-us-bzpquTROmgHV0X63Frwg3HtsNpDW5WpA-x_nXP0fH31tLhNl_c3d4vLZWqoxEPKRSFUSbIqzySUnGS5KAgIKA0jWHJsCyhoWQllsRGmopArwUsGOS0KRWPm6Hjd2_vubYQw6MYFC3VtWujGoInkmaIC84ke_aGv3ejb-LtJMcwElewfRWUulZi6TtbK-i4ED5XuvWuMX2mC9TS9_p0-4sOvyrFooPyh31tHcLoGpje6Dytr_OBsDcGO3sdxpzJNGNdZfMPpB-csjEQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1863858973</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Broomell, Stephen B. ; Kane, Patrick Bodilly</creator><contributor>Gauthier, Isabel ; Cowan, Nelson</contributor><creatorcontrib>Broomell, Stephen B. ; Kane, Patrick Bodilly ; Gauthier, Isabel ; Cowan, Nelson</creatorcontrib><description>Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evidence that threatens an individual's political ideology is perceived as more uncertain than nonthreatening evidence. The authors present 3 studies examining perceptions of scientific uncertainty more broadly by including sciences that are not politically polarizing. Study 1 develops scales measuring perceptions of scientific uncertainty. It finds (a) 3 perceptual dimensions of scientific uncertainty, with the primary dimension representing a perception of precision; (b) the precision dimension of uncertainty is strongly associated with the perceived value of a research field; and (c) differences in perceived uncertainty across political affiliations. Study 2 manipulated these dimensions, finding that Republicans were more sensitive than Democrats to descriptions of uncertainty associated with a research field (e.g., psychology). Study 3 found that these views of a research field did not extend to the evaluation of individual results produced by the field. Together, these studies show that perceptions of scientific uncertainty associated with entire research fields are valid predictors of abstract perceptions of scientific quality, benefit, and allocation of funding. Yet, they do not inform judgments about individual results. Therefore, polarization in the acceptance of specific results is not likely due to individual differences in perceived scientific uncertainty. Further, the direction of influence potentially could be reversed, such that perceived quality of scientific results could be used to influence perceptions about scientific research fields.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0096-3445</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-2222</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/xge0000260</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28134548</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPGEDD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Attitude ; Biomedical Research ; Communication ; Experimental psychology ; Female ; Human ; Humans ; Ideology ; Information communication ; Judgment ; Male ; Perceptions ; Political Attitudes ; Politics ; Psychometrics ; Public Opinion ; Research Support as Topic ; Risk Perception ; Scaling (Testing) ; Science ; Sciences ; Uncertainty ; United States</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2017-02, Vol.146 (2), p.286-304</ispartof><rights>2017 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>(c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).</rights><rights>2017, American Psychological Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Feb 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a380t-67b79d12f528ed61257b1e7eda410860cbeb3df79c0a7af3e5976d4e53bb93333</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28134548$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Gauthier, Isabel</contributor><contributor>Cowan, Nelson</contributor><creatorcontrib>Broomell, Stephen B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kane, Patrick Bodilly</creatorcontrib><title>Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. General</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Gen</addtitle><description>Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evidence that threatens an individual's political ideology is perceived as more uncertain than nonthreatening evidence. The authors present 3 studies examining perceptions of scientific uncertainty more broadly by including sciences that are not politically polarizing. Study 1 develops scales measuring perceptions of scientific uncertainty. It finds (a) 3 perceptual dimensions of scientific uncertainty, with the primary dimension representing a perception of precision; (b) the precision dimension of uncertainty is strongly associated with the perceived value of a research field; and (c) differences in perceived uncertainty across political affiliations. Study 2 manipulated these dimensions, finding that Republicans were more sensitive than Democrats to descriptions of uncertainty associated with a research field (e.g., psychology). Study 3 found that these views of a research field did not extend to the evaluation of individual results produced by the field. Together, these studies show that perceptions of scientific uncertainty associated with entire research fields are valid predictors of abstract perceptions of scientific quality, benefit, and allocation of funding. Yet, they do not inform judgments about individual results. Therefore, polarization in the acceptance of specific results is not likely due to individual differences in perceived scientific uncertainty. Further, the direction of influence potentially could be reversed, such that perceived quality of scientific results could be used to influence perceptions about scientific research fields.</description><subject>Attitude</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Experimental psychology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Ideology</subject><subject>Information communication</subject><subject>Judgment</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Perceptions</subject><subject>Political Attitudes</subject><subject>Politics</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Public Opinion</subject><subject>Research Support as Topic</subject><subject>Risk Perception</subject><subject>Scaling (Testing)</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Sciences</subject><subject>Uncertainty</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0096-3445</issn><issn>1939-2222</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0MtKxDAYBeAgio6jGx9ACm5ErCZNmsvChQzeYEBBXYc0_SuR3kxacN7e1PECbjybQPhyCAehA4LPCKbi_P0FcEzG8QaaEUVVmsVsohnGiqeUsXwH7YbwOiEq-TbaySShLGdyhi4exqJ2NnkAb6EfXNcmpi2TRdc0Y-us-bzpquTROmgHV0X63Frwg3HtsNpDW5WpA-x_nXP0fH31tLhNl_c3d4vLZWqoxEPKRSFUSbIqzySUnGS5KAgIKA0jWHJsCyhoWQllsRGmopArwUsGOS0KRWPm6Hjd2_vubYQw6MYFC3VtWujGoInkmaIC84ke_aGv3ejb-LtJMcwElewfRWUulZi6TtbK-i4ED5XuvWuMX2mC9TS9_p0-4sOvyrFooPyh31tHcLoGpje6Dytr_OBsDcGO3sdxpzJNGNdZfMPpB-csjEQ</recordid><startdate>20170201</startdate><enddate>20170201</enddate><creator>Broomell, Stephen B.</creator><creator>Kane, Patrick Bodilly</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170201</creationdate><title>Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty</title><author>Broomell, Stephen B. ; Kane, Patrick Bodilly</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a380t-67b79d12f528ed61257b1e7eda410860cbeb3df79c0a7af3e5976d4e53bb93333</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Attitude</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Experimental psychology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Ideology</topic><topic>Information communication</topic><topic>Judgment</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Perceptions</topic><topic>Political Attitudes</topic><topic>Politics</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Public Opinion</topic><topic>Research Support as Topic</topic><topic>Risk Perception</topic><topic>Scaling (Testing)</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Sciences</topic><topic>Uncertainty</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Broomell, Stephen B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kane, Patrick Bodilly</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Access via APA PsycArticles® (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. General</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Broomell, Stephen B.</au><au>Kane, Patrick Bodilly</au><au>Gauthier, Isabel</au><au>Cowan, Nelson</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. General</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Gen</addtitle><date>2017-02-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>146</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>286</spage><epage>304</epage><pages>286-304</pages><issn>0096-3445</issn><eissn>1939-2222</eissn><coden>JPGEDD</coden><abstract>Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evidence that threatens an individual's political ideology is perceived as more uncertain than nonthreatening evidence. The authors present 3 studies examining perceptions of scientific uncertainty more broadly by including sciences that are not politically polarizing. Study 1 develops scales measuring perceptions of scientific uncertainty. It finds (a) 3 perceptual dimensions of scientific uncertainty, with the primary dimension representing a perception of precision; (b) the precision dimension of uncertainty is strongly associated with the perceived value of a research field; and (c) differences in perceived uncertainty across political affiliations. Study 2 manipulated these dimensions, finding that Republicans were more sensitive than Democrats to descriptions of uncertainty associated with a research field (e.g., psychology). Study 3 found that these views of a research field did not extend to the evaluation of individual results produced by the field. Together, these studies show that perceptions of scientific uncertainty associated with entire research fields are valid predictors of abstract perceptions of scientific quality, benefit, and allocation of funding. Yet, they do not inform judgments about individual results. Therefore, polarization in the acceptance of specific results is not likely due to individual differences in perceived scientific uncertainty. Further, the direction of influence potentially could be reversed, such that perceived quality of scientific results could be used to influence perceptions about scientific research fields.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>28134548</pmid><doi>10.1037/xge0000260</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0096-3445 |
ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2017-02, Vol.146 (2), p.286-304 |
issn | 0096-3445 1939-2222 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1862937063 |
source | MEDLINE; EBSCOhost APA PsycARTICLES |
subjects | Attitude Biomedical Research Communication Experimental psychology Female Human Humans Ideology Information communication Judgment Male Perceptions Political Attitudes Politics Psychometrics Public Opinion Research Support as Topic Risk Perception Scaling (Testing) Science Sciences Uncertainty United States |
title | Public Perception and Communication of Scientific Uncertainty |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T22%3A23%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Public%20Perception%20and%20Communication%20of%20Scientific%20Uncertainty&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20General&rft.au=Broomell,%20Stephen%20B.&rft.date=2017-02-01&rft.volume=146&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=286&rft.epage=304&rft.pages=286-304&rft.issn=0096-3445&rft.eissn=1939-2222&rft.coden=JPGEDD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/xge0000260&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4311918131%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1863858973&rft_id=info:pmid/28134548&rfr_iscdi=true |