Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Hendriks, Friederike
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Jucks, Regina
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824
Resumo: Even though a main goal of science is to reduce the uncertainty in scientific results by applying ever-improving research methods, epistemic uncertainty is an integral part of science. As such, while uncertainty might be communicated in news articles about climate science, climate skeptics have also exploited this uncertainty to cast doubt on science itself. We performed two studies to assess whether scientific uncertainty affects laypeople’s assessments of issue uncertainty, the credibility of the information, their trust in scientists and climate science, and impacts their decision-making. In addition, we addressed how these effects are influenced by further information on relevant scientific processes, because knowing that uncertainty goes along with scientific research could ease laypeople’s interpretations of uncertainty around evidence and may even protect against negative impacts of such uncertainty on trust. Unexpectedly, in study 1, after participants read both a text about research methods and a news article that included scientific uncertainty, they had lower trust in the scientists’ assertions than when they read the uncertain news article alone (but this did not impact trust in climate science or decision-making). In study 2, we tested whether these results occurred due to participants overestimating the scientific uncertainty at hand. Hence, we varied the framing of uncertainty in the text on scientific processes. We found that exaggerating the scientific uncertainty produced by scientific processes (vs. framing the uncertainty as something to be expected) did not negatively affect participants’ trust ratings. However, the degree to which participants preferred effortful reasoning on problems (intellective epistemic style) correlated with ratings of trust in scientists and climate science and with their decision-making. In sum, there was only little evidence that the introduction of uncertainty in news articles would affect participants’ ratings of trust and their decision-making, but their preferred style of reasoning did.
id RCAP_d957be0fcc27cbb8d4ba717b6f17c8c6
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2824
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?fake news; procedural knowledge; readership; science communication; scientific literacy; scientific uncertainty; trustEven though a main goal of science is to reduce the uncertainty in scientific results by applying ever-improving research methods, epistemic uncertainty is an integral part of science. As such, while uncertainty might be communicated in news articles about climate science, climate skeptics have also exploited this uncertainty to cast doubt on science itself. We performed two studies to assess whether scientific uncertainty affects laypeople’s assessments of issue uncertainty, the credibility of the information, their trust in scientists and climate science, and impacts their decision-making. In addition, we addressed how these effects are influenced by further information on relevant scientific processes, because knowing that uncertainty goes along with scientific research could ease laypeople’s interpretations of uncertainty around evidence and may even protect against negative impacts of such uncertainty on trust. Unexpectedly, in study 1, after participants read both a text about research methods and a news article that included scientific uncertainty, they had lower trust in the scientists’ assertions than when they read the uncertain news article alone (but this did not impact trust in climate science or decision-making). In study 2, we tested whether these results occurred due to participants overestimating the scientific uncertainty at hand. Hence, we varied the framing of uncertainty in the text on scientific processes. We found that exaggerating the scientific uncertainty produced by scientific processes (vs. framing the uncertainty as something to be expected) did not negatively affect participants’ trust ratings. However, the degree to which participants preferred effortful reasoning on problems (intellective epistemic style) correlated with ratings of trust in scientists and climate science and with their decision-making. In sum, there was only little evidence that the introduction of uncertainty in news articles would affect participants’ ratings of trust and their decision-making, but their preferred style of reasoning did.Cogitatio2020-06-25info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2824Media and Communication; Vol 8, No 2 (2020): Health and Science Controversies in the Digital World: News, Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement; 401-4122183-2439reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttps://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2824https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2824/2824https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/downloadSuppFile/2824/1047Copyright (c) 2020 Friederike Hendriks, Regina Juckshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessHendriks, FriederikeJucks, Regina2022-12-20T10:59:19Zoai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2824Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T16:21:17.282526Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
title Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
spellingShingle Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
Hendriks, Friederike
fake news; procedural knowledge; readership; science communication; scientific literacy; scientific uncertainty; trust
title_short Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
title_full Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
title_fullStr Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
title_full_unstemmed Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
title_sort Does Scientific Uncertainty in News Articles Affect Readers’ Trust and Decision-Making?
author Hendriks, Friederike
author_facet Hendriks, Friederike
Jucks, Regina
author_role author
author2 Jucks, Regina
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Hendriks, Friederike
Jucks, Regina
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv fake news; procedural knowledge; readership; science communication; scientific literacy; scientific uncertainty; trust
topic fake news; procedural knowledge; readership; science communication; scientific literacy; scientific uncertainty; trust
description Even though a main goal of science is to reduce the uncertainty in scientific results by applying ever-improving research methods, epistemic uncertainty is an integral part of science. As such, while uncertainty might be communicated in news articles about climate science, climate skeptics have also exploited this uncertainty to cast doubt on science itself. We performed two studies to assess whether scientific uncertainty affects laypeople’s assessments of issue uncertainty, the credibility of the information, their trust in scientists and climate science, and impacts their decision-making. In addition, we addressed how these effects are influenced by further information on relevant scientific processes, because knowing that uncertainty goes along with scientific research could ease laypeople’s interpretations of uncertainty around evidence and may even protect against negative impacts of such uncertainty on trust. Unexpectedly, in study 1, after participants read both a text about research methods and a news article that included scientific uncertainty, they had lower trust in the scientists’ assertions than when they read the uncertain news article alone (but this did not impact trust in climate science or decision-making). In study 2, we tested whether these results occurred due to participants overestimating the scientific uncertainty at hand. Hence, we varied the framing of uncertainty in the text on scientific processes. We found that exaggerating the scientific uncertainty produced by scientific processes (vs. framing the uncertainty as something to be expected) did not negatively affect participants’ trust ratings. However, the degree to which participants preferred effortful reasoning on problems (intellective epistemic style) correlated with ratings of trust in scientists and climate science and with their decision-making. In sum, there was only little evidence that the introduction of uncertainty in news articles would affect participants’ ratings of trust and their decision-making, but their preferred style of reasoning did.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-06-25
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824
oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2824
url https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824
identifier_str_mv oai:ojs.cogitatiopress.com:article/2824
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2824
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v8i2.2824
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/2824/2824
https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/downloadSuppFile/2824/1047
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Friederike Hendriks, Regina Jucks
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Friederike Hendriks, Regina Jucks
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Cogitatio
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Media and Communication; Vol 8, No 2 (2020): Health and Science Controversies in the Digital World: News, Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement; 401-412
2183-2439
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799130659565862912