oa De invloed van verwijzing naar wetenschappelijke autoriteit op de waarheidsperceptie van plausibel maar onjuist weergegeven wetenschapsnieuws

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]