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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of experimental psychology. General 2017-02, Vol.146 (2), p.286-304
Hauptverfasser: Broomell, Stephen B., Kane, Patrick Bodilly
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