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

Abstract

Samenvatting

Ondanks overweldigend wetenschappelijk bewijs zijn we het niet allemaal eens over de feiten met betrekking tot een aantal belangrijke onderwerpen. Hoe kan dat? Dit artikel geeft een overzicht van onderzoek naar hoe mensen vasthouden aan onjuiste overtuigingen terwijl ze geconfronteerd worden met juiste informatie en hoe wetenschapscommunicatie verbeterd kan worden om mensen te helpen tot wetenschappelijk accurate overtuigingen te komen.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.007.STEK
2022-10-01
2022-11-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/13846930/50/3/TCW2022.3.007.STEK.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.007.STEK&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Anglin, S. M. (2019). Do beliefs yield to evidence? Examining belief perseverance vs. change in response to congruent empirical findings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 176-199.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anvari, F., Kievit, R. A., Lakens, D., Andrew, K., Tiokhin, L., & Wiernik, B. M. (n.d.). Evaluating the practical relevance of observed effect sizes in psychological research. Preprint. doi: 10.31234/osf.io/g3vtr
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnett, A. G. (2004). Regression to the mean: What it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34(1), 215-220.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79-95.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BBC News. (2016, November16). ‘Post-truth’ declared word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37995600
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beck, J. (2017). This article won’t change your mind. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2018). Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change?Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 389-402.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235-262.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Burns, T. W., O’Connor, D. J., & Stocklmayer, S. M. (2003). Science communication: A contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2), 183-202.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, S., Duckworth, K., & Chaiken, S. (1999). Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 44-49.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chinn, S. (2021). Scientific agreement, disagreement, and denial in climate change news, 1988-2018 [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association 71st Annual Conference, 2021, online.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cunningham, A. (2020). Measles has come back with a vengeance in the last several years. Science News. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/measles-cases-deaths-numbers-increase-2019-outbreaks-covid
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dixon, G. (2016). Applying the Gateway Belief Model to genetically modified food perceptions: New insights and additional questions. Journal of Communication, 66(6), 888-908.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2019). More evidence of psychological reactance to consensus messaging: A response to van der Linden, Maibach, and Leiserowitz (2019). Environmental Communication, 1-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9587-9592.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (2020). Measles continues to spread across the EU / EEA – No time for complacency. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/measles-continues-spread-across-eueea-no-time-complacency
    [Google Scholar]
  18. European Parliament (2015). Eight things you should know about GMOs. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/20151013STO97392/eight-things-you-should-know-about-gmos
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Flynn, D. J. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(S1), 127-150.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156-168.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676-699.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, M. H., Gustafson, A., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising. Nature Climate Change, 11(7), 573-577.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gross, A. G. (1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3(1), 3-23.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701-723.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: A meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 555-588.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hefferon, K. (2015). Nutritionally enhanced food crops. Progress and perspectives. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 16(2), 3895-3914.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hertwig, R., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 973-986.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hornsey, M. J. (2020). Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 583-591.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018). The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 37(4), 307-315.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. International Energy Agency (n.d.). IEA Atlas of Energy: CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. http://energyatlas.iea.org/#!/tellmap/1378539487
    [Google Scholar]
  31. IPCC (2018). Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Full_Report_High_Res.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Kahan, D. M., & Carpenter, K. (2017). Out of the lab and into the field. Nature Climate Change, 7(5), 309-311.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54-86.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Kahneman, D., Slovic, S. P., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kappel, K., & Holmen, S. J. (2019). Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Frontiers in Communication, 4 (October), 1-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Khan, S., Anwar, S., Yu, S., Sun, M., Yang, Z., & Gao, Z. (2019). Development of drought-tolerant transgenic wheat: Achievements and limitations. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(13), 3350.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kolbert, E. (2017). Why facts don’t change our minds. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Landrum, A. R., & Slater, M. H. (2020). Open questions in scientific consensus messaging research. Environmental Communication, 14(8), 1033-1046.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Larson, H. J., de Figueiredo, A., Xiahong, Z., Schulz, W. S., Verger, P., Johnston, I. G., Cook, A. R., & Jones, N. S. (2016). The state of vaccine confidence 2016: Global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine, 12, 295-301.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Carman, J., Neyens, L., Marlon, J., Lacroix, K., & Goldberg, M. (2021). Climate Change in the American Mind, September 2021 (Issue September).
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 399-404.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Lewandowsky, S., Sunstein, C. R., & Hertwig, R. (2020). How behavioural sciences can promote truth, autonomy and democratic discourse online. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1102-1109.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ma, Y., Dixon, G., & Hmielowski, J. D. (2019). Psychological reactance from reading basic facts on climate change: The role of prior views and political identification. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 71-86.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Merkley, E. (2020). Are experts (news)worthy? Balance, conflict, and mass media coverage of expert consensus. Political Communication, 37(4), 1-20.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mummolo, J., & Peterson, E. (2019). Demand effects in survey experiments: An empirical assessment. American Political Science Review, 113(2), 517-529.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. National Academy of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. (2017). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. The National Academies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Nyhan, B. (2021). Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1912440117.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Nyhan, B., Porter, E., Reifler, J., & Wood, T. J. (2020). Taking fact-checks literally but not seriously? The effects of journalistic fact-checking on factual beliefs and candidate favorability. Political Behavior, 42(3), 939-960.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776-783.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22-27.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pasek, J. (2018). It’s not my consensus: Motivated reasoning and the sources of scientific illiteracy. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 787-806.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pearce, W., Brown, B., Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N. (2015). Communicating climate change: Conduits, content, and consensus. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(6), 613-626.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153-163.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Springer New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pew Research Center. (2015). An elaboration of AAAS scientists’ views. https://www.pewinternet.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Rains, S. A., Levine, T. R., & Weber, R. (2018). Sixty years of quantitative communication research summarized: Lessons from 149 meta-analyses. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(2), 105-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49-75.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Romm, C. (2014, December12). Vaccine myth-busting can backfire. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/vaccine-myth-busting-can-backfire/383700/
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Scott, S. E., Inbar, Y., Wirz, C. D., Brossard, D., & Rozin, P. (2018). An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Annual Review of Nutrition, 38(1), 459-479.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A., & Yeo, S. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400-414.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Sturgis, P., & Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Swire-Thompson, B., DeGutis, J., & Lazer, D. (2020). Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 286-299.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. United Nations. (n.d.). Global issues: Food. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/food
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Van der Linden, S. (2021). The Gateway Belief Model (GBM): A review and research agenda for communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 7-12.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D., & Maibach, E. W. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS ONE, 10(2), 2-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Van der Linden, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Letter to the editors of Psychological Science: Boosting scientific consensus is likely to correct false beliefs across domains: Regarding Zarzeczna et al. (2021) on van Stekelenburg et al. (2021). Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.25384/SAGE.17022059.v2
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Leiserowitz, A. (2019). Exposure to scientific consensus does not cause psychological reactance. Environmental Communication, 1-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M. (2020). Correcting misperceptions: The causal role of motivation in corrective science communication about vaccine and food safety. Science Communication, 42(1), 31-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M. (2021a). Investigating and improving the accuracy of US citizens’ beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic: Longitudinal survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(1), e24069.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M. (2021b). Boosting understanding and identification of scientific consensus can help to correct false beliefs. Psychological Science, 32(10), 1549-1565.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., & Buijzen, M. (2022). Letter to the editors of Psychological Science: Boosting consensus reasoning might correct false beliefs across science domains: Regarding van der Linden & Lewandowsky (2022) and Zarzeczna et al. (2021) on van Stekelenburg et al. (2021). Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/n86ux
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Van Stekelenburg, A., Schaap, G., Veling, H., van ’t Riet, J., & Buijzen, M. (n.d.). Scientific consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysis. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/etsrw
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Wellcome. (2018). Wellcome Global Monitor: How does the world feel about science and health?https://wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Wesseler, J., & Zilberman, D. (2014). The economic power of the Golden Rice opposition. Environment and Development Economics, 19(6), 724-742.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. World Health Organization. (2020). UN tackles ‘ infodemic ’ of misinformation and cybercrime in COVID-19 crisis. https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-communications-team/un-tackling-‘infodemic’-misinformation-and-cybercrime-covid-19
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Zarzeczna, N., Većkalov, B., Gligorić, V., & Rutjens, B. T. (2021). Letter to the editors of Psychological Science: Boosting understanding is unlikely to correct false beliefs about most science domains: Regarding van Stekelenburg et al. (2021). Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/8rwdp
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.007.STEK
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TCW2022.3.007.STEK
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