Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims.
Saved in:
| Title: | Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Scharrer, Lisa (AUTHOR), Stadtler, Marc (AUTHOR), Bromme, Rainer (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Cognitive Psychology. Nov2019, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p1165-1177. 13p. 4 Charts. |
| Subjects: | Capital punishment, Public understanding of science, Legal claims |
| Abstract: | Summary: Scientific claims that are connected to ethical concerns are frequently brought forward by communicators who are not ethically neutral. This study investigated how far recipients' evaluation of such claims is guided by vigilance toward a potential ethical source bias rather than their own ethical bias. One hundred ten individuals opposed to capital punishment read a topic‐related text by an ethically positioned source. A scientific claim in the text either supported or did not support the recipient's ethical stance; in addition, the source either shared or opposed their stance. Results showed that recipients are guided to some extent by their own ethically motivated reasoning: They agree more consistently with sources sharing their ethical stance and consider these sources to be more credible. Recipients appear to be principally aware that a source's ethical stance may bias its scientific message, but this vigilance seems to depend on their own ethical disagreement with the source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Summary: Scientific claims that are connected to ethical concerns are frequently brought forward by communicators who are not ethically neutral. This study investigated how far recipients' evaluation of such claims is guided by vigilance toward a potential ethical source bias rather than their own ethical bias. One hundred ten individuals opposed to capital punishment read a topic‐related text by an ethically positioned source. A scientific claim in the text either supported or did not support the recipient's ethical stance; in addition, the source either shared or opposed their stance. Results showed that recipients are guided to some extent by their own ethically motivated reasoning: They agree more consistently with sources sharing their ethical stance and consider these sources to be more credible. Recipients appear to be principally aware that a source's ethical stance may bias its scientific message, but this vigilance seems to depend on their own ethical disagreement with the source. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 08884080 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/acp.3563 |
