对科学家的成见和社会评价与不同的前因后果有关。

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-08 DOI:10.1177/09636625241232097
Vukašin Gligorić, Roy Clerc, Gabi Arkensteijn, Gerben A van Kleef, Bastiaan T Rutjens
{"title":"对科学家的成见和社会评价与不同的前因后果有关。","authors":"Vukašin Gligorić, Roy Clerc, Gabi Arkensteijn, Gerben A van Kleef, Bastiaan T Rutjens","doi":"10.1177/09636625241232097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (<i>N</i> = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"855-871"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459872/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Vukašin Gligorić, Roy Clerc, Gabi Arkensteijn, Gerben A van Kleef, Bastiaan T Rutjens\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625241232097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (<i>N</i> = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"855-871\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11459872/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241232097\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241232097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有关科学家认知的研究往往集中于刻板印象(白人、男性)或社会评价(能干但冷漠),有时会产生不一致的结论(例如,科学家同时被视为道德和不道德)。通过两项预先登记的相关研究(N = 1091),我们同时评估了刻板印象和社会评价及其与两个关键结果(对科学家的信任和科学职业吸引力)之间的关联,从而解决了这一问题。我们发现,刻板印象和社会评价是不同类型的认知--它们略有关联,源于不同的世界观,预测的结果也部分不同。西方文化熏陶和宗教信仰可以预测刻板印象,而右翼政治意识形态则与社会评价呈负相关。在刻板印象不一致的个体中,刻板印象与较低的科学职业吸引力相关,而社会评价则预示着对科学家更多的信任和较高的科学职业吸引力。因此,这项研究揭示了信任科学家的心理途径,以及成为科学家的感知吸引力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes.

Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (N = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
A different image? Images of scientists in Chinese films. Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture: A comparative content analysis of mass media in the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada. The public you want, the public you get: Exploring the relationship between the public and science in the debate on xenotransplantation. Chinese scientists' mediated participation in public outreach: Multiple direct and personal norm-mediated predictors. Climate change by any other name: Social representations and language practices of coastal inhabitants on Mayotte Island in the Indian Ocean.
×
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