Examining and resolving in my own mind disputes between scientists is pretty much the essence of what I do on a daily basis, especially, but not only, at this blog. So, this study caught my attention. I suspect that my methods are more analytical and sourced than average, and view myself as kindred to "superforecasters" in my methods.
Uncertainty that arises from disputes among scientists seems to foster public skepticism or noncompliance. Communication of potential cues to the relative performance of contending scientists might affect judgments of which position is likely more valid. We used actual scientific disputes—the nature of dark matter, sea level rise under climate change, and benefits and risks of marijuana—to assess Americans’ responses (n = 3150).
Seven cues—replication, information quality, the majority position, degree source, experience, reference group support, and employer—were presented three cues at a time in a planned-missingness design. The most influential cues were majority vote, replication, information quality, and experience. Several potential moderators—topical engagement, prior attitudes, knowledge of science, and attitudes toward science—lacked even small effects on choice, but cues had the strongest effects for dark matter and weakest effects for marijuana, and general mistrust of scientists moderately attenuated top cues’ effects.
Risk communicators can take these influential cues into account in understanding how laypeople respond to scientific disputes, and improving communication about such disputes.
Branden B. Johnson, Marcus Mayorga, Nathan F. Dieckmann, "How people decide who is correct when groups of scientists disagree" Risk Analysis (July 28, 2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment