Easy to Understand but Difficult to Decide: Information Comprehensibility and Controversiality Affect Laypeople's Science-Based Decisions

Discourse Processes

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 361-387

  Scharrer, Lisa ^a   Britt, M Anne ^b   Stadtler, Marc ^a   Bromme, Rainer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881618234     PISSN: 0163853X     EISSN: 15326950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Andreassen, H., Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Chronaki, C., Dumitru, R., Pudule, I., Santana, S. and Wynn, R. 2007. European citizens' use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7: 53 - 57.
2. Baron, R. M. and 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.
3. Bromme, R., Kienhues, D. and Porsch, T. 2010. " Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) attained from others ". In Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice, Edited by: Bendixen, L. D. and Feucht, F. C. 163 - 193. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bromme, R., Rambow, R. and 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.
5. Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2013). From understanding to deference: Laypersons' and medical students' views on conflicts within medicine. Manuscript submitted for publication
6. Chinn, C. A. and Samarapungavan, A. 2001. Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory Into Practice, 40: 235 - 241.
7. Eagly, A. H. 1974. Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29: 758 - 773.
8. Eastin, M. S. 2001. Credibility assessments of online health information: The effects of source expertise and knowledge of content. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6 Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue4/eastin.html
9. Eisend, M. 2007. Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology and Marketing, 24: 615 - 640.
10. Erb, H.-P., Bohner, G., Rank, S. and Einwiller, S. 2002. Processing minority and majority communications: The role of conflict with prior attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 1172 - 1182.
11. Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12. Eysenbach, G. 2008. " Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth ". In Digital media, youth and credibility, Edited by: Metzger, M. and Flanagin, A. J. 123 - 154. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Fox, S. 2005. Health information online, Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
14. Goldman, S. R. and Bisanz, G. L. 2002. " Toward functional analysis of scientific genres: Implications for understanding and learning processes ". In The psychology of science text comprehension, Edited by: Otero, J., Leon, J. A. and Graesser, A. C. 19 - 50. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Hodson, D. 2008. Towards scientific literacy. A teachers' guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
16. Jucks, R. 2001. Was verstehen laien? Die verständlichkeit von fachtexten aus der sicht von computer-experten [What do laypersons understand? The comprehensibility of scientific texts out of experts' perspective], Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
17. Judd, C. M., Kenny, D. A. and McClelland, G. H. 2001. Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-participant designs. Psychological Methods, 6: 115 - 134.
18. Keehner, M. and Fischer, M. H. 2011. Naive realism in public perceptions of neuroimages. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12: 118
19. Keil, F. C. 2008. Getting to the truth: Grounding incomplete knowledge. Brooklyn Law Review, 73: 1035 - 1052.
20. Keil, F. C., Lockhart, K. L. and Schlegel, E. 2010. A bump on a bump? Emerging intuitions concerning the relative difficulty of the sciences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139: 1 - 15.
21. Kienhues, D. and Bromme, R. 2012. Exploring laypeople's epistemic beliefs about medicine-a factor-analytic survey study. BMC Public Health, 12: 759
22. Kienhues, D., Stadtler, M. and Bromme, R. 2011. Dealing with conflicting or consistent medical information on the Web: When expert information breeds laypersons' doubts about experts. Learning and Instruction, 21: 193 - 204.
23. Mason, L., Boldrin, A. and Ariasi, N. 2010. Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active?. Instructional Science, 38: 607 - 633.
24. Mason, L. and Boscolo, P. 2004. Role of epistemological understanding and interest in interpreting a controversy and in topic-specific belief change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29: 103 - 128.
25. Mercier, H. 2012. The social functions of explicit coherence evaluation. Mind and Society, 11: 81 - 92.
26. Nagy, W. 1988. Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension, Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
27. O'Keefe, D. J. 1999. " How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects on one-sided and two-sided messages ". In Communication yearbook, Edited by: Roloff, M. E. Vol. 22, 209 - 249. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. O'Keefe, D. J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Osborne, J. 2010. Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328: 463 - 466.
30. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A. and Stadtler, M. 2012. The seduction of easiness: How science depictions influence laypeople's reliance on their own evaluation of scientific information. Learning and Instruction, 22: 231 - 243.
31. Schwarz, N. 2004. Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14: 332 - 348.
32. Singer, E. 1990. A question of accuracy: How journalists and scientists report research on hazards. Journal of Communication, 40: 102 - 116.
33. Stadtler, M. and Bromme, R. 2008. Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24: 716 - 737.
34. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L. and Bromme, R. 2011. " How reading goals and rhetorical signals influence recipients' recognition of intertextual conflicts ". In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Edited by: Carlson, L., Hoelscher, C. and Shipley, T. F. 1346 - 1351. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
35. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B. and Bromme, R. 2013. Dealing with uncertainty: Readers' memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 32: 130 - 150.
36. Stahl, E. and Bromme, R. 2007. The CAEB: An instrument for measuring connotative aspects of epistemological beliefs. Learning and Instruction, 17: 773 - 785.
37. Thomm, E. and Bromme, R. 2012. "It should at least seem scientific!" Textual features of "scientificness" and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96: 197 - 211.
38. Yaniv, I., Choshen-Hillel, S. and Milyavsky, M. 2009. Spurious consensus and opinion revision: Why might people be more confident in their less accurate judgments?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35: 558 - 563.
39. Zimmerman, C., Bisanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., Klein, J. S. and Klein, P. 2001. Science at the supermarket: A comparison of what appears in the popular press, experts' advice to readers, and what students want to know. Public Understanding of Science, 10: 37 - 58.