How Source Information Shapes Lay Interpretations of Science Conflicts: Interplay between Sourcing, Conflict Explanation, Source Evaluation, and Claim Evaluation

Autor/inn/en	Thomm, Eva; Bromme, Rainer
Titel	How Source Information Shapes Lay Interpretations of Science Conflicts: Interplay between Sourcing, Conflict Explanation, Source Evaluation, and Claim Evaluation
Quelle	In: Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 29 (2016) 8, S.1629-1652 (24 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0922-4777
DOI	10.1007/s11145-016-9638-8
Schlagwörter	Lay People; Scientific and Technical Information; Information Sources; Controversial Issues (Course Content); Credibility; Evaluation Methods; College Students; Expertise; Knowledge Level; Decision Making; Conflict Resolution + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Laie; Information source; Informationsquelle; Controversial issues; Kontroverse; Glaubwürdigkeit; Collegestudent; Expert appraisal; Wissensbasis; Decision-making; Entscheidungsfindung; Conflict solving; Konfliktlösung; Konfliktregelung
Abstract	When laypeople read controversial scientific information in order to make a personally relevant decision, information on the source is a valuable resource with which to evaluate multiple, competing claims. Due to their bounded understanding, laypeople rely on the expertise of others and need to identify whether sources are credible. The present study examined under which conditions readers acknowledge and consider available source information. University students read two conflicting scientific claims put forward by sources whose credibility was varied in terms of either expertise or benevolence. They then rated their subjective explanations for the conflicting claims, perceived source credibility, and personal claim agreement. Results showed that when evaluating and explaining the conflict, participants became vigilant to source information specifically when source credibility was questioned. Conflict explanation through differences in sources' competencies mediated the impact of sourcing on source credibility. Information about a source's benevolence revealed a strong direct effect on credibility judgments. However, motivation explanations did not clarify the relationship. Overall, findings show that readers consider source information and apply it adaptively when handling conflicting scientific information. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Springer. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: service-ny@springer.com; Web site: http://www.springerlink.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01