People who have more science education rely less on misinformation—Even if they do not necessarily follow the health recommendations

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Research in Science Teaching Pub Date : 2024-09-02 DOI:10.1002/tea.21975
Yael Rozenblum, Keren Dalyot, Ayelet Baram‐Tsabari
{"title":"People who have more science education rely less on misinformation—Even if they do not necessarily follow the health recommendations","authors":"Yael Rozenblum, Keren Dalyot, Ayelet Baram‐Tsabari","doi":"10.1002/tea.21975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science‐related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision‐making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID‐19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID‐19‐related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science‐related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision‐making process more than its outcome.","PeriodicalId":48369,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Research in Science Teaching","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21975","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent research has highlighted the role of science education in reducing beliefs in science‐related misinformation and stressed its potential positive impact on decision‐making and behavior. This study implemented the Elaboration Likelihood Model to explore how individuals' abilities and motivation interact with the type of processing of scientific information in the peripheral vs. central persuasion routes. A representative sample of adults (N = 500) completed an online questionnaire during the second wave of COVID‐19 (November 2020) focused on two COVID‐19‐related dilemmas involving social distancing recommendations. First, we examined whether relying on misinformation was associated with participants' stances and the complexity of their arguments and found that relying on misinformation was associated with the intention to reject social distancing recommendations and with the use of simple arguments. Second, we explored how motivation, operationalized as personal relevance, and abilities, operationalized as the highest level of science education, science knowledge, and strategies to identify misinformation, were associated with viewpoints and justifications. We found that personal relevance was associated with the intention to reject the recommendations but also with more complex arguments, suggesting that people did not intend to reject scientific knowledge but rather tended to contextualize it. Abilities were not associated with stance but were positively correlated with argument complexity. Finally, we examined whether motivation and abilities are associated with relying on scientific misinformation when making science‐related decisions. Respondents with higher levels of science education and motivation relied less on misinformation, even if they did not necessarily intend to follow the health recommendations. This implies that motivation directs people to greater usage of the central processing route, resulting in more deliberative use of information. Science education, it appears, impacts the information evaluation decision‐making process more than its outcome.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受过更多科学教育的人更少依赖错误信息--即使他们不一定遵循健康建议
最近的研究强调了科学教育在减少与科学有关的错误信息方面的作用,并强调了科学教育对决策和行为的潜在积极影响。本研究采用阐释可能性模型(Elaboration Likelihood Model)来探讨个体的能力和动机如何与外围与中心说服途径中的科学信息处理类型相互作用。在 COVID-19 第二波(2020 年 11 月)期间,一个具有代表性的成人样本(N = 500)完成了一份在线问卷,重点是两个与 COVID-19 相关的涉及社会距离建议的困境。首先,我们研究了依赖错误信息是否与参与者的立场和论据的复杂性有关,发现依赖错误信息与拒绝社会疏远建议的意愿和使用简单论据有关。其次,我们探讨了动机(操作化为个人相关性)和能力(操作化为最高科学教育水平、科学知识和识别错误信息的策略)如何与观点和理由相关联。我们发现,个人相关性与拒绝接受建议的意愿有关,但也与更复杂的论据有关,这表明人们并不打算拒绝接受科学知识,而是倾向于将其与具体情况相结合。能力与立场无关,但与论证复杂性呈正相关。最后,我们研究了在做出与科学有关的决策时,动机和能力是否与依赖科学错误信息有关。科学教育和动机水平较高的受访者对错误信息的依赖程度较低,即使他们并不一定打算遵循健康建议。这意味着,动机会引导人们更多地使用中央处理途径,从而更慎重地使用信息。看来,科学教育对信息评估决策过程的影响要大于其结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Journal of Research in Science Teaching EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.80
自引率
19.60%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy. Scholarly manuscripts within the domain of the Journal of Research in Science Teaching include, but are not limited to, investigations employing qualitative, ethnographic, historical, survey, philosophical, case study research, quantitative, experimental, quasi-experimental, data mining, and data analytics approaches; position papers; policy perspectives; critical reviews of the literature; and comments and criticism.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information “Powered by emotions”: Exploring emotion induction in out‐of‐school authentic science learning Issue Information Developing and evaluating the extended epistemic vigilance framework The IPM cycle: An instructional tool for promoting students' engagement in modeling practices and construction of models
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1