View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: pbh
DbLabel: Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection
An: 139765299
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scharrer%2C+Lisa%22">Scharrer, Lisa</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stadtler%2C+Marc%22">Stadtler, Marc</searchLink> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bromme%2C+Rainer%22">Bromme, Rainer</searchLink> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22">Applied Cognitive Psychology</searchLink>. Nov2019, Vol. 33 Issue 6, p1165-1177. 13p. 4 Charts.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Capital+punishment%22">Capital punishment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+understanding+of+science%22">Public understanding of science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Legal+claims%22">Legal claims</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>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.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=pbh&AN=139765299
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/acp.3563
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 13
        StartPage: 1165
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Capital punishment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public understanding of science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Legal claims
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Biased recipients encounter biased sources: Effect of ethical (dis‐)agreement between recipient and author on evaluating scientific claims.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scharrer, Lisa
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stadtler, Marc
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bromme, Rainer
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Text: Nov2019
              Type: published
              Y: 2019
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 08884080
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 33
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1