Search

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-pus-10.1177_09636625231176377 for Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness by Mark Jonas, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis and Tom Rosman in Public Understanding of Science

Selective exposure to online health information can be ascribed to two related defense motives: the motivation to confirm one’s subjective perceptions and the motivation to protect relevant parts of the self-image, such as physical integrity. Our aim was to identify how these motives come into effect in the context of a health threat (fictitious feedback on an alleged heart disease risk). In a preregistered online study with N = 763 participants, we analyzed the impact of perceived and suggested risk on the degree of bias in selecting risk-related information on a fictitious Google search results page. Applying a 2 × 2 design with the experimental factor “risk feedback” and the quasi-experimental factor “perceived risk,” we formulated six hypotheses. First, we expected a main effect of perceived risk on selective exposure to information suggesting no risk, and second, we hypothesized a main effect of perceived risk on mean quality rating of information suggesting a risk. Third, we proposed a main effect of risk feedback on selective exposure to information which suggests no risk, and fourth, we proposed a main effect of risk feedback on mean quality rating of information suggesting a risk. Fifth, we expected an interaction effect between perceived and suggested risk, and sixth, we proposed an interaction effect between perceived and suggested risk in different forms for each of the four conditions on quality ratings. Only the third hypothesis was confirmed: Receiving information which suggested a health risk increased the tendency to select information denying the risk. Additional exploratory analyses revealed moderator effects of health information literacy and participant age on the aforementioned relationships. In sum, our results underline the crucial role of defense motives in the context of a suggested health threat.

Numerous scientific disciplines have lately advocated for a broader use of plain language summaries (PLS) to facilitate access to scientific works and to support laypeople's informed decision making. However, PLS may likely be prone to the “easiness effect” (i.e. being judged as more trustworthy due to a higher level of accessibility) and the “scientificness effect” (i.e. being judged as less trustworthy due to avoiding jargon and mainly presenting core findings). Both effects have already been demonstrated separately, but have not yet been investigated jointly. Especially with regard to PLS, the question remains which of the two effects outweighs the other, and if there are potential interactions between them on epistemic trust. For instance, it seems plausible to assume that a text combining high levels of “easiness” and “scientificness” elicits the highest levels of trust. To further investigate these issues, a preregistered online within-person experimental study with N = 1,440 participants (general population sample) is currently being carried out. Participants read four summaries of psychological studies that are systematically varied regarding their “easiness” (low vs. high) and “scientificness” (low vs. high). After each text, readers rate both text credibility as well as author trustworthiness. The effects of “scientificness” and “easiness” and their interaction on trust will be analyzed via mixed models. While the study is still ongoing, results will be available for the poster session. We will discuss implications for writing PLS in general as well as for the challenge of balancing out “scientificness” and “easiness” in (written) science communication.

This project contains the preregistration of the first study of the MEPIC project.

In-service and preservice teachers are increasingly required to integrate research results into their classroom practice. However, due to their limited methodological background knowledge, they often cannot evaluate scientific evidence firsthand and instead must trust the sources on which they rely. In two experimental studies, we investigated the amount of this so-called epistemic trustworthiness (dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence) that student-teachers ascribe to the authors of texts who present classical research findings (e.g., learning with worked-out examples) that allegedly were written by a practitioner, an expert, or a scientist. Results from the first exploratory study suggest that student-teachers view scientists as “smart but evil,” since they rate them as having substantially more expertise than practitioners, while also being less benevolent and lacking in integrity. Moreover, results from the exploratory study suggest that evaluativistic epistemic beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge) predict epistemic trustworthiness. A preregistered conceptual replication study (Study 2) provided more evidence for the “smart but evil” stereotype. Further directions of research as well as implications for practice are discussed.

This project contains data, code and materials of the following article: Kerwer, M., Chasiotis, A., Stricker, J., Günther, A. & Rosman, T. (in press). Straight from the scientist's mouth - Plain language summaries promote laypeople’s comprehension and knowledge acquisition when reading about individual research findings in psychology. Collabra: Psychology.

The Replication Crisis diminishes trust in empirical sciences and with it the perceived value of science (Lupia, 2018). Open Science Practices (i.a. open data, open analysis script, open materials) are an increasingly popular approach to deal with challenges in replication and to rebuilt trust (Geukes, Schönbrodt, Utesch, Geukes, & Back, 2016). First investigations could, however, deliver no evidence toward the effects of Open Science Practices (OSP) on trustworthiness (Wingen, Berkessel, & Englich, 2019). The study investigated the effect on a discipline level (psychology) with an abstract description of OSP. Within the ongoing discussion about incentives for OSP (e.g. badges), we want to shift the focus from discipline level to concrete individual journal articles and consider epistemic beliefs of readers to play a moderating role (Merk & Rosman, 2018): Will visible OSP (vs. not visible vs. visibly non-OSP) foster perceived trustworthiness when reading journal articles of empirical studies? Will multiplistic epistemic beliefs moderate the relationship between OSP and trustworthiness? The design will include three conditions: visible Open Science Practices (visOSP), Practices not visible (nonvis) and visible non-Open Science Practices (nonOSP). Two of the conditions are randomized within person. Realizing all three conditions within person would highlight the variation between conditions as too obvious and thus undermine blinding of subjects. visOSP condition: Subjects receive a title page of an empirical study (Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, ...) together with three Open Science badges. The badges are explained using hints in style of speech bubbles and indicate that the authors engaged in the OSP open data, open analysis script and open materials. nonvis condition: Subjects receive a title page of an empirical study (Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, ...) with no further information on Open Science, reflecting a "standard" journal article. nonOSP condition: Subjects receive a title page of an empirical study (Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, ...) together with three Open Science badges. The badges are explained using hints in style of speech bubbles and indicate that the authors did not engage in the OSP open data, open analysis script and open materials. As participants are exposed to more than one condition, we create all three conditions for three different empirical studies (topics). This way we avoid participants to see one study topic twice under different conditions, which would undermine the blinding. Measured variables are perceives trustworthiness: We apply the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (Hendriks, Kienhues, & Bromme, 2015) with all three subscales. However, as dependent variable we will only employ the subscale integrity. The other two subscales are used for further exploratory analyses. Topic-specific multiplism: We apply the subscale of topic specific multiplism from Merk et al. (2017) Topic-specific consistency: We apply the three item-measure from Merk et al. (2017), Treatment check: We test the perceived openness/ transparency of the empirical study. Additional small set of demographic variables will be assessed.

Im Zuge des Kulturwandels hin zu Open Science werden in Deutschland wie international zunehmend Infrastrukturangebote geschaffen, um transparente und replizierbare psychologische Forschung zu unterstützen. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war das Erhalten von Informationen zu den Open Science-Infrastrukturbedarfen der psychologischen Fachcommunity sowie dazu, inwiefern die Angebote des Leibniz-Instituts für Psychologie (ZPID) diese Bedarfe im Jahr 2021 abdecken. Ein besonderer Fokus lag dabei auf Forschenden aus den deutschsprachigen Ländern; die Umfrage richtete sich aber auch an Praktiker/-innen und Studierende. Insgesamt nahmen N = 460 Personen an der Umfrage teil; der Großteil davon waren DGPs-Mitglieder. Laut den Ergebnissen der Bedarfsanalyse gibt es in der Community ein erhebliches Interesse an kostenfreien Suchwerkzeugen, an der Open-Access-Publikation von Forschungsergebnissen sowie an einer Infrastruktur für Online-Datenerhebungen. Die Ergebnisse der auf die einzelnen ZPID-Angebote abzielenden Nutzerstudie spiegeln diese Befunde: Auch hier erhalten Suchwerkzeuge (z. B. PubPsych oder PSYNDEX), Open-Access-Angebote (Open Test Archive, PsychOpen) sowie das PsychLab ONLINE die höchsten Wichtigkeitsratings. Im Durchschnitt kennen die Befragten M = 4.37 (SD = 2.70; Median = 4) von insgesamt 16 Angeboten; dabei werden M = 2.04 (SD = 1.76; Median = 2) Angebote aktiv genutzt. Eine signifikant stärkere Bekanntheit und Nutzung der ZPID-Angebote fand sich in der Gruppe der Professorinnen und Professoren sowie in Mitgliedern der DGPs-Fachgruppe Differentielle Psychologie, Persönlichkeitspsychologie und Psychologische Diagnostik. Die qualitative Analyse der Freitextantworten am Ende der Umfrage ergab insgesamt ein positives Bild; Kritik bezog sich häufig auf die geringe Bekanntheit der ZPID-Angebote sowie auf Dopplungen zwischen ZPID- und Konkurrenzangeboten. Insgesamt sind die Befunde als ermutigend anzusehen, wenngleich eine noch höhere Bekanntheit der Angebotspalette als Ganzes wünschenswert wäre. Limitation sowie Implikationen der Befunde für Forschung und Praxis werden diskutiert., Beitrag aus der Reihe "ZPID Science Information Online"

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-pss-10.1177_09567976221097499 for Do Open-Science Badges Increase Trust in Scientists Among Undergraduates, Scientists, and the Public? by Jürgen Schneider, Tom Rosman, Augustin Kelava and Samuel Merk in Psychological Science

Researchers studying person-environment fit can choose between various measurement approaches. Even though these measures are distinctly different, they often get used interchangeably, which makes interpreting the results of person-environment fit studies difficult. In the present article, we contrast the most commonly used measurement approaches for person-environment fit in higher education and compare them in terms of explained variance. We obtained data on the fit as well as subjective and objective study-related outcomes of N = 595 university students. We analyzed the fit between the demands of the study program and the abilities of the student, using the algebraic, squared and absolute difference score, response surface analysis (RSA), and direct fit as measurement approaches. Our results indicate that RSA explains the most variance for objective outcomes, and that direct fit explains the most variance for subjective outcomes. We hope that this contribution will help researchers distinguish the different measurement approaches of demands-abilities fit (and ultimately person-environment fit) and use them accordingly.