Social media are increasingly being used for educational purposes. The first part of this article briefly reviews literature that reports on educational applications of social media tools. The second part discusses theories that may provide a basis for analyzing the processes that are relevant for individual learning and collective knowledge construction. We argue that a systems-theoretical constructivist approach is appropriate to examine the processes of educational social media use, namely, self-organization, the internalization of information, the externalization of knowledge, and the interplay of externalization and internalization providing the basis of a co-evolution of cognitive and social systems. In the third part we present research findings that illustrate and support this systems-theoretical framework. Concluding, we discuss the implications for educational design and for future research on learning and collective knowledge construction with social media.
The Web 2.0 enabled collaboration at an unprecedented level. In one of the flagships of mass collaboration-Wikipedia-a large number of authors socially negotiate the world's largest compendium of knowledge. Several guidelines in Wikipedia restrict contributions to verifiable information from reliable sources to ensure recognized knowledge. Much psychological research demonstrates, however, that individual information processing is biased. This poses the question whether individual biases translate to Wikipedia articles or whether they are prevented by its guidelines. The present research makes use of hindsight bias to examine this question. To this end, we analyzed foresight and hindsight versions of Wikipedia articles regarding a broad variety of events (Study 1). We found the majority of articles not to contain traces of hindsight bias-contrary to prior individual research. However, for a particular category of events-disasters-we found robust evidence for hindsight bias. In a lab experiment (Study 2), we then examined whether individuals' hindsight bias is translated into articles under controlled conditions and tested whether collaborative writing-as present in Wikipedia-affects the resultant bias (vs. individual writing). Finally, we investigated the impact of biased Wikipedia articles on readers (Study 3). As predicted, biased articles elicited a hindsight bias in readers, who had not known of the event previously. Moreover, biased articles also affected individuals who knew about the event already, and who had already developed a hindsight bias: biased articles further increased their hindsight.
Inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts are perceived as indicative of inaccuracy and reduce the witnesses' credibility. Reminiscence, the delayed recall of previously not recalled information, is generally interpreted as a type of inconsistency. Even though it does not necessarily involve the falsity of the statements, reminiscence presents a counterintuitive instance with mostly unknown reliability. Two studies empirically assessed the accuracy of reminiscent items after retention intervals of up to 1 week and contrasted them with peoples' beliefs regarding their accuracy. In line with an implicit assumption of memory fading with the passage of time, delayed recall of previously unmentioned details was judged to be unreliable. In contrast, actual accuracy of reminiscent details was consistently high and even comparable to immediate recollections. Although participants generally underestimated accuracy, it was most pronounced in the case of reminiscence. The findings are discussed within the context of contemporary legal practice, such as jury instructions.
Abstract. Young researchers of today will shape the field in the future. In light of current debates about social psychology’s research culture, this exploratory survey assessed early-career researchers’ beliefs (N = 88) about the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs), potential causes, and open science as a possible solution. While there was relative consensus that outright fraud is an exception, a majority of participants believed that some QRPs are moderately to highly prevalent what they attributed primarily to academic incentive structures. A majority of participants felt that open science is necessary to improve research practice. They indicated to consider some open science recommendations in the future, but they also indicated some reluctance. Limitation and implications of these findings are discussed.
BackgroundThe public typically believes psychotherapy to be more effective than pharmacotherapy for depression treatments. This is not consistent with current scientific evidence, which shows that both types of treatment are about equally effective.ObjectiveThe study investigates whether this bias towards psychotherapy guides online information search and whether the bias can be reduced by explicitly providing expert information (in a blog entry) and by providing tag clouds that implicitly reveal experts’ evaluations.MethodsA total of 174 participants completed a fully automated Web-based study after we invited them via mailing lists. First, participants read two blog posts by experts that either challenged or supported the bias towards psychotherapy. Subsequently, participants searched for information about depression treatment in an online environment that provided more experts’ blog posts about the effectiveness of treatments based on alleged research findings. These blogs were organized in a tag cloud; both psychotherapy tags and pharmacotherapy tags were popular. We measured tag and blog post selection, efficacy ratings of the presented treatments, and participants’ treatment recommendation after information search.ResultsParticipants demonstrated a clear bias towards psychotherapy (mean 4.53, SD 1.99) compared to pharmacotherapy (mean 2.73, SD 2.41; t 173=7.67, P<.001, d=0.81) when rating treatment efficacy prior to the experiment. Accordingly, participants exhibited biased information search and evaluation. This bias was significantly reduced, however, when participants were exposed to tag clouds with challenging popular tags. Participants facing popular tags challenging their bias (n=61) showed significantly less biased tag selection (F 2,168=10.61, P<.001, partial eta squared=0.112), blog post selection (F 2,168=6.55, P=.002, partial eta squared=0.072), and treatment efficacy ratings (F 2,168=8.48, P<.001, partial eta squared=0.092), compared to bias-supporting tag clouds (n=56) and balanced tag clouds (n=57). Challenging (n=93) explicit expert information as presented in blog posts, compared to supporting expert information (n=81), decreased the bias in information search with regard to blog post selection (F 1,168=4.32, P=.04, partial eta squared=0.025). No significant effects were found for treatment recommendation (Ps>.33).ConclusionsWe conclude that the psychotherapy bias is most effectively attenuated—and even eliminated—when popular tags implicitly point to blog posts that challenge the widespread view. Explicit expert information (in a blog entry) was less successful in reducing biased information search and evaluation. Since tag clouds have the potential to counter biased information processing, we recommend their insertion.
In many situations red is associated with hazard and danger. As a consequence, it was expected that task-irrelevant color cues in online environments would affect risk-taking behaviors. This assumption was tested in two web-based experiments. The first study (N = 383) demonstrated that in risky choice dilemmas respondents preferred the less risky option when the displayed university logo was in red (versus gray); but only when both choice alternatives were at least moderately risky. The second study (N = 144) replicated these results with a behavioral outcome: Respondents showed more cautious behavior in a web-based game when the focal stimuli were colored red (versus blue). Together, these findings demonstrate that variations in the color design of a computerized environment affect risk taking: Red color leads to more conservative choices and behaviors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.