2004
Volume 50 Number 3
  • ISSN: 1384-6930
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7286

Abstract

Samenvatting

Deze studie onderzocht de rol van verwijzing naar autoriteit als perifere cue in waarheidspercepties van leken over plausibel maar verkeerd weergegeven wetenschapsnieuws. Resultaten toonden een beperkt effect van autoriteit. Mensen worden dus niet per definitie beïnvloed door autoriteit bij het inschatten van de juistheid van informatie en zijn mogelijk minder gevoelig voor dit type heuristische informatie dan duale procesmodellen voorspellen.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.003.REIJ
2022-10-01
2022-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13846930/50/3/TCW2022.3.003.REIJ.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.003.REIJ&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AD.nl (2017, 1mei). ‘Bier beter dan paracetamol’. https://www.ad.nl/wetenschap/bier-beter-dan-paracetamol~a5e89064
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aharon, A. A., Ruban, A., & Dubovi, I. (2021). Knowledge and information credibility evaluation strategies regarding COVID-19: A cross-sectional study. Nursing Outlook, 69(1), 22-31.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., & Tully, M. (2021). Correcting misperceptions about genetically modified food on social media: Examining the impact of experts, social media heuristics, and the gateway belief model. Science Communication, 43(2), 225-251.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Broek-Honingh, N. van den & de Jonge, J. (2018). Vertrouwen in de wetenschap. Monitor 2018. Rathenau Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Broek-Honingh, N. van den, Glas, I., & Vennekens, A. (2021). Vertrouwen van Nederlanders in de wetenschap (enquête 2021). Rathenau Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(1), 68-91.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Burgers, C., de Graaf, A., & Callaars, S. (2012). Differences in actual persuasiveness between experiential and professional expert evidence. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(2), 194-208.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-766.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Conrad, P. (1999). Uses of expertise: Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news. Public Understanding of Science, 8(4), 285-302.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238-257.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gottschling, S., Kammerer, Y., Thomm, E., & Gerjets, P. (2020). How laypersons consider differences in sources’ trustworthiness and expertise in their regulation and resolution of scientific conflicts. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 10(4), 335-354.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Guenther, L., Bischoff, J., Löwe, A., Marzinkowski, H., & Voigt, M. (2019). Scientific evidence and science journalism: Analysing the representation of (un) certainty in German print and online media. Journalism Studies, 20(1), 40-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). Truth from language and truth from fit: The impact of linguistic concreteness and level of construal on subjective truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1576-1588.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hasher, L., Goldstein, D., & Toppino, T. (1977). Frequency and the conference of referential validity. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(1), 107-112.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hijmans, E., Pleijter, A., & Wester, F. (2003). Covering scientific research in Dutch newspapers. Science Communication, 25(2), 153-176.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hornikx, J. (2022). On the conditional acceptance of arguments from expert opinion. In: S.Oswald, M.Lewiński, S.Greco & S.Villata (Eds.), The pandemic of argumentation (pp. 355-371). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2005). Is expertevidentie overtuigender in Frankrijk dan in Nederland?Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 27(1), 42-57.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 443-463.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Johnson, B. B. (2019). Experiments in lay cues to the relative validity of positions taken by disputing groups of scientists. Risk Analysis, 39(8), 1657-1674.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jucks, R., & Thon, F. M. (2017). Better to have many opinions than one from an expert? Social validation by one trustworthy source versus the masses in online health forums. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 375-381.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, A., & Dennis, A. R. (2018). Says who? How news presentation format influences perceived believability and the engagement level of social media users. In: Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 4465-4475). Curran Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. König, L., & Breves, P. (2021). Providing health information via Twitter: Professional background and message style influence source trustworthiness, message credibility and behavioral intentions. Journal of Science Communication, 20(4), A04.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019). When do information seekers trust scientific information? Insights from recipients’ evaluations of online video lectures. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-019-0132-7
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Liu, Z. (2004). Perceptions of credibility of scholarly information on the web. Information Processing & Management, 40(6), 1027-1038.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Meuffels, B., & van den Bergh, H. (2005). De ene tekst is de andere niet: The language-as-a fixed-effect fallacy revisited: Statistische implicaties. Tijdschrift Voor Taalbeheersing, 27(2), 106-125.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Meulen, M. van der, & Reijnierse, W. G. (2020). FactCorp: A corpus of Dutch fact-checks and its multiple usages. In:Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2020) (pp. 1286-1292).
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nadarevic, L., Reber, R., Helmecke, A. J., & Köse, D. (2020). Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 56.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. National Academies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. NOS.nl (2017, 30april). Onderzoek: bier bestrijdt pijn beter dan paracetamol. https://nos.nl/artikel/2170903-onderzoek-bier-bestrijdt-pijn-beter-dan-paracetamol.html
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nurse, M. S., Ross, R. M., Isler, O., & Van Rooy, D. (2022). Analytic thinking predicts accuracy ratings and willingness to share COVID-19 misinformation in Australia. Memory & Cognition, 50(2), 425-434.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). Elaboration Likelihood Model. In: W.Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pennycook, G., McPhetres, J., Zhang, Y., Lu, J. G., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science, 31(7), 770-780.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019a). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(7), 2521-2526.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019b). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019c). Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. Journal of Personality, 88(2), 185-200.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847-855.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Rieh, S. Y. (2002). Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(2), 145-161.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Schat, J., Bossema, F. G., Numans, M. E., Smeets, I., & Burger, J. P. (2018). Overdreven gezondheidsnieuws. Relatie tussen overdrijving in academische persberichten en in nieuwsmedia. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde, 162(1), 13-17.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Scheitle, C. P., & Guthrie, S. K. (2019). Public responses to scientific research: Does disciplinary attribution matter?Public Understanding of Science, 28(2), 234-245.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662-7669.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schölvinck, A.- F., Jaswina. E., & Van den Broek-Honingh, N. (2021). Vertrouwde wetenschap. Een kwalitatieve studie naar het publieke vertrouwen in wetenschap en opdrachtonderzoek. Rathenau Instituut.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Steijaert, M. (2017, 13mei). Klopt dit wel: bier is een betere pijnstiller dan paracetamol. De Volkskrant. https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/klopt-dit-wel-bier-is-een-betere-pijnstiller-dan-paracetamol~b0fcbcb3
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C.A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., & ChambersC.D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 349. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Telegraaf.nl (2017, 1mei). ‘Bier werkt beter dan paracetamolletje’. https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1350407/bier-werkt-beter-dan-paracetamolletje
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Thompson, T., Oram, C., Correll, C. U., Tsermentseli, S., & Stubbs, B. (2017). Analgesic effects of alcohol: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled experimental studies in healthy participants. The Journal of Pain, 18(5), 499-510.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Thomson, K. S., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016). Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 99-113.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Thon, F. M., & Jucks, R. (2017). Believing in expertise: How authors’ credentials and language use influence the credibility of online health information. Health Communication, 32(7), 828-836.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. U.S. Census Bureau (2016). Frequently occurring surnames from the 2010 census. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy/data/2010_surnames.html
    [Google Scholar]
  55. U.S. Census Bureau (2018). Annual estimates of the resident population for incorporated places of 50,000 or more, ranked by July 1, 2018 Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html
    [Google Scholar]
  56. U.S. Social Security Administration (2019). Top names of the 1960s. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/babynames/decades/names1960s.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Voormolen, S. (2017, 14mei). NRC checkt: ‘Bier bestrijdt pijn beter dan paracetamol’. NRC Next. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/05/14/bier-bestrijdt-pijn-beter-dan-paracetamol-9081330-a1558624
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2017). Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Science Communication, 39(5), 621-645.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(2), 101-112.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.003.REIJ
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.003.REIJ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error