Individual Uncertainty and the Uncertainty of Science: The Impact of Perceived Conflict and General Self-Efficacy on the Perception of Tentativeness and Credibility of Scientific Information
Danny Flemming, Insa Feinkohl, Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle
Abstract
We examined in two empirical studies how situational and personal aspects of uncertainty influence laypeople's understanding of the uncertainty of scientific information, with focus on the detection of tentativeness and perception of scientific credibility. In the first study (N = 48), we investigated the impact of a perceived conflict due to contradicting information as a situational, text-inherent aspect of uncertainty. The aim of the second study (N = 61) was to explore the role of general self-efficacy as an intra-personal uncertainty factor. In Study 1, participants read one of two versions of an introductory text in a between-group design. This text provided them with an overview about the neurosurgical procedure of deep brain stimulation (DBS). The text expressed a positive attitude toward DBS in one experimental condition or focused on the negative aspects of this method in the other condition. Then participants in both conditions read the same text that dealt with a study about DBS as experimental treatment in a small sample of patients with major depression. Perceived conflict between the two texts was found to increase the perception of tentativeness and to decrease the perception of scientific credibility, implicating that text-inherent aspects have significant effects on critical appraisal. The results of Study 2 demonstrated that participants with higher general self-efficacy detected the tentativeness to a lesser degree and assumed a higher level of scientific credibility, indicating a more naïve understanding of scientific information. This appears to be contradictory to large parts of previous findings that showed positive effects of high self-efficacy on learning. Both studies showed that perceived tentativeness and perceived scientific credibility of medical information contradicted each other. We conclude that there is a need for supporting laypeople in understanding the uncertainty of scientific information and that scientific writers should consider how to present scientific results when compiling pertinent texts.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 October 2022.
All research outputs
#563,465
of 24,826,104 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,158
of 33,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,515
of 398,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#24
of 453 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,826,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 398,852 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 453 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
