Is it believable when it's scientific? How Scientific discourse style influences laypeople's resolution of conflicts

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 36-57

  Bromme, Rainer ^a   Scharrer, Lisa ^a   Stadtler, Marc ^a   Hömberg, Johanna ^a   Torspecken, Ronja ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Multiple documents; Science controversy; Scientific discourse; Source evaluation

Indexed keywords

EDUCATION;

MEDICAL ISSUES; MULTIPLE DOCUMENTS; SCIENCE CONTROVERSY; SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE; SCIENTIFIC TEXTS; SOURCE EVALUATIONS;

CLIMATE CHANGE;

EID: 85027932533     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21172     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 918-942. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
2. Andreassen, H., Bujnowska-Fedak, M., Chronaki, C., Dumitru, R., Pudule, I., Santana, S., Wynn, R., (2007). European citizens' use of E-health services: A study of seven countries. BMC Public Health, 7, 53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53
3. Besley, J. C. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and engineering indicators (pp. 7.1-7.53). Washington, DC: National Science Board/National Science Foundation.
4. Bless, H., Wänke, M., Bohner, G., Fellhauer, R. F., & Schwarz, N. (1994). Need for cognition: Eine Skala zur Erfassung von Engagement und Freude bei Denkaufgaben [Need for cognition: A scale measuring engagement and happinessincognitive tasks]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 25, 147-154.
5. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
6. Chinn, C. A., & Samarapungavan, A. (2001). Distinguishing between understanding and belief. Theory Into Practice, 40, 235-241. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4004-4
7. Erb, H.-P., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Persuasion-Ein oder zwei Prozesse [Persuasion: Is it one or two processes]? Zeitschrift fürSozialpsychologie, 36, 117-131. doi: 10.1024/0044-3514.36.3.117
8. Evans, E. M., & Lane, J. D. (2011). Contradictory or complementary? Creationist and evolutionist explanationsoforigins. Human Development, 54, 144-159. doi: 10.1159/000329130
9. Feinstein, N. (2011). Salvaging science literacy. Science Education, 95, 168-185. doi: 10.1002/sce.20414
10. Feinstein, N., Allen, S., & Jenkins, E. (2013). Outside the pipeline: Reimagining science education for nonscientists. Science, 340, 314-317. doi: 10.1126/science.1230855
11. Ferguson, L. E., Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2012). Epistemic cognition when students read multiple documents containing conflicting scientific evidence: A think-aloud study. Learning and Instruction, 22, 103-120. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002
12. Fox, S. (2005). Health information online. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
13. 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.
14. 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, NY: Routledge.
15. 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. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115
16. Keil, F. C. (2010). The feasibility of folk science. Cognitive Science, 34, 826-862. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x
17. Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2012). Exploring laypeople's epistemic beliefs about medicine-A factor-analytic survey study. BMC Public Health, 12, 759. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-759
18. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socio-scientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-310. doi: 10.1002/sce.1011
19. Kruglanski, A. W., Chen, X. Y., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H. P., & Spiegel, S. (2006). Persuasion according to the unimodel: Implications for cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, 105-122. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00285.x
20. Kruglanski, A. W., Dechesne, M., Orehek, E., & Pierro, A. (2009). Three decadesoflay epistemics: The why, how and who of knowledge formation. The European Review of Social Psychology, 20, 146-199. doi: 10.1080/10463280902860037
21. Lombardi, D., Sinatra, G. M., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013). Plausibility reappraisals and shifts in middle school students' climate change conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 27, 50-62. doi: 10.1016/j. learninstruc.2013.03.001
22. Maier, J., & Richter, T. (2013). Text-belief consistency effects in the comprehension of multiple texts with conflicting information. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 151-175. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769997
23. Munro, G. D. (2010). The scientific impotence excuse: Discounting belief-threatening scientific abstracts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 579-600. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00588.x
24. Munro, G. D. (2011). Fallingondeaf ears. The Psychologist, 24, 178-181.
25. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2009). Scientific literacy. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of research on literacy (pp. 271-285). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26. Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463-466. doi: 10.1126/science.1183944
27. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. doi:10.1002/tea.20035
28. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 315-347. doi: 10.1002/tea.21073
29. Pellegrino, J. W. (2013). Proficiency in science: Assessment challenges and opportunities. Science, 340, 320-323. doi:10.1126/science.1232065
30. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental SocialPsychology, 19, 123-205.
31. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades' evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
32. Powell, J. L. (2011). The inquisitionofclimate science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
33. Rabinovich, A., Morton, T. A., & Birney, M. E. (2012). Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator's motives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 11-18. doi: 10.1016/j. jenvp. 2011.09.002
34. Richter, T., Schroeder, S., & Wöhrmann, B. (2009). You don't have to believe everything you read: Background knowledge permits fast and efficient validation of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 538-558. doi: 10.1037/a0014038
35. Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 513-536. doi: 10.1002/tea.20009
36. Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122-1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037
37. Scharrer, L., Britt, M. A., Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2013). Easy to understand but difficult to decide: Information comprehensibility and controversiality affect laypeople's science-based decisions. Discourse Processes, 50, 361-387. doi: 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835
38. Scharrer, L., Bromme, R., Britt, M. A., & 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. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004
39. Stadtler, M. (2006). Auf der Suche nach medizinischen Fachinformationen. Metakognitionen bei der Internetrecherche von Laien [Searching for expert medical information: Metacognitions in laypersons' Internet searches]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
40. Stadtler, M., & Bromme, R. (2008). Effects of the metacognitive tool met.a.ware on the web search of laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 716-737. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2007.01.023
41. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & 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, 31, 130-150. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2013.769996
42. Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Skodzik, T., & Bromme, R. (2014). Comprehending multiple documents on scientific controversies: Effects of reading goals and signaling rhetorical relationships. Discourse Processes, 51, 93-116. doi:10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535
43. Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Do students' beliefs about knowledge and knowing predict their judgment of texts' trustworthiness? Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental EducationalPsychology, 31, 177-206. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2010.538039
44. Thomm, E., & 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. doi: 10.1002/sce.20480
45. Treise, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M. F., & Friedman, M. (2003). Cultivating the science Internet audience: Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication, 24, 309-332. doi: 10.1177/1075547002250298
46. Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39, 307-311. doi: 10.1007/s11165-009-9124-2
47. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists' views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journalof Research in Science Teaching, 41, 338-369. doi: 10.1002/tea.20008