"It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 187-211

  Thomm, Eva ^a   Bromme, Rainer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857031170     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20480     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. American Psychological Association., (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Andreassen, H. K., Bujnowska-Fedak, M. M., Chronaki, C. E., Dumitru, R. C., Pudule, I., Santana, S., et al. (2007). European citizens' use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7, 53.
3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4. Billig, M. (2011). Writing social psychology: Fictional things and unpopulated texts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 4-20.
5. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. (2006). Epistemological beliefs, interest, and gender as predictors of internet-based learning activities. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 1027-1042.
6. Brem, S. K., & Rips, L. J. (2000). Explanation and evidence in informal argument. Cognitive Science, 24, 573-604.
7. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others. In L. D. Bendixen & F. C. Feucht, (Eds.). Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 163-193). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 317-330.
9. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
10. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory Into Practice, 40, 235-241.
11. Christensen, H., & Griffiths, K. (2000). The internet and mental health literacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 975-979.
12. Collins, H. & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Eysenbach, G. (2008). Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In M. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds), Digital media, youth and credibility (pp. 123-154). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Eysenbach, G., & Köhler C., (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the World Wide Web? British Medical Journal, 324, 573-577.
15. Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: A systematic review. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(20), 2691-2700.
16. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89, 335-347.
17. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95(1), 168-185.
18. Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of Web-based information. New Media & Society, 9(2), 319-342.
19. Fogg, B. J., Soohoo, C., Danielson, D. R., Marable, L., Stanford, J., & Trauber, E. R. (2003). How do users evaluate the credibility of Web sites? A study with over 2, 500 participants. Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences, San Francisco, CA (pp. 1-15).
20. Fox, S. (2005). Health information online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
21. Fox, S., & Rainie, L. (2000). The online health care revolution: How the Web helps Americans take better care of themselves. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from
22. Goldman, A. I. (2003). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23. Goldman, S. R., & Bisanz, G. L. (2002). Toward functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes. In J. Otero, J. A. Leon, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 19-50), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin, (Eds.). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
25. Harré, R. (1990). Some narrative conventions of scientific discourse. In C. Nash, (Ed.), Narrative in culture: The uses of storytelling in the sciences, philosophy, and literature (pp. 81-101). New York: Routledge.
26. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 275-288.
27. Horrigan, J. (2006). The Internet as a resource for news and information about science. Retrieved August 23, 2010, from
28. Hurd, P. D. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407-416.
29. Jucks, R. (2001). Was verstehen Laien? Die Verständlichkeit von Fachtexten aus der Sicht von Computer-Experten [What do laypeople understand? The comprehensibility of specialist texts from the perspective of computer experts]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
30. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115-134.
31. Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826-862.
32. Keil, F. C., Stein, C., Webb, L., Billings, V. D., & Rozenblit, L. (2008). Discerning the division of cognitive labor: An emerging understanding of how knowledge is clustered in other minds. Cognitive Science, 32, 259-300.
33. Kienhues, D. & Bromme, R. (2011). Beliefs about abilities and epistemic beliefs-Aspects of cognitive flexibility in information rich environments. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme & G. Clarebout, (Eds.). Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility: lessons learned (pp. 105-124). New York: Springer.
34. Liu, X. (2009). Beyond science literacy: Science and the public. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4, 301-311.
35. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic metacognition in context: Evaluating and learning online information. Metacognition and Learning, 5, 67-90.
37. Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010b). Searching the Web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38, 607-633.
38. Murphy, P. K., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Persuasion as a dynamic, multidimensional process: An investigation of individual and intraindividual differences. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 337-363.
39. National Research Council., (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
40. Niederhauser J., (1999). Wissenschaftssprache und populärwissenschaftliche Vermittlung [Scientific language and popular science]. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.
41. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224-240.
42. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Science Literacy. In D. R. Olson, N. Torrance (Ed.). The Cambridge handbook of literacy (pp. 286-312). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
43. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (2009). Bridging the gap between the language of science and the language of school science through the use of adapted primary literature. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 313-319.
44. PISA., (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: OECD.
45. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Using representational guidance to enhance metacognitive activity when learning on the WWW. In J. Canas, (Ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognition and the Web (pp. 173-180). Granada: Spain.
46. Suppe, F. (1998). The structure of a scientific paper. Philosophy of Science, 65, 381-405.
47. Trout, J. D. (2008). Seduction without cause: Uncovering explanatory neurophilia. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 281-282.
48. Warnick, B. (2004). Online ethos: Source credibility on an "authorless" environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 256-265.
49. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470-477.
50. Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in Internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 1060-1106.
51. Wittwer, J., Bromme, R., & Jucks, R. (2004). Kann man dem Internet trauen, wenn es um die Gesundheit geht? Die Glaubwürdigkeitsbeurteilung medizinischer Fachinformationen im Internet durch Laien [Is Internet health information to be trusted? Lay judgments of the credibility of medical information]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 2, 48-56.