Knowledge is Shared

Fernbach, Philip M.; Light, Nicholas

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1722601

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, even when accuracy directly impacts survival (e.g., “will this vaccine reduce my risk of life-threatening illness?”), social goals sometimes still triumph if the information is too ambiguous or challenging (Kopko et al, 2011; Munro, Lasane, & Leary, 2010; Munro, Weih, & Tsai, 2010). When one senses the truth is unknowable, deferring to one’s social group makes adaptive sense (Fernbach & Light, 2020).…”

Section: The Goals Of Human Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

Clark¹,

Costello²,

Mitchell³

2022

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioral scientists enjoy vast methodological freedom in how they operationalize theoretical constructs. This freedom may promote creativity in designing laboratory paradigms that shed light on real-world phenomena, but it also enables questionable research practices that undercut our collective credibility. Open Science norms impose some discipline but cannot constrain cherry-picking operational definitions that insulate preferred theories from rejection. All too often scholars conduct performative research to score points instead of engaging each other’s strongest arguments—a pattern that allows contradictory claims to fester unresolved for decades. Adversarial collaborations, which call on disputants to codevelop tests of competing hypotheses, are an efficient method of improving our science’s capacity for self-correction and of promoting intellectual competition that exposes false claims. Although individual researchers are often initially reluctant to participate, the research community would be better served by institutionalizing adversarial collaboration into its peer-review process.

show abstract

Section: The Goals Of Human Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

Clark¹,

Costello²,

Mitchell³

2022

Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concern about the accuracy, quality, commercial bias, and incompleteness regarding health-related information on the Internet is not new (Fahy et al, 2014). In addition to poor baseline knowledge among consumers regarding GMFs (Wunderlich and Gatto, 2015), poor scientific literacy among consumers may drive people to a particular position or viewpoint (Fernbach and Nocholas, 2020). Consumer confusion is exacerbated by diversity in the global regulatory landscape between countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The landscape of online news regarding genetically modified foods: A cross-sectional study

Samuel

Basch

2022

Nutr Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There has been substantial debate surrounding the use of genetically modified foods (GMFs). Aim The purpose of this study was to describe the content of news articles covering GMFs. Methods A search was completed on Google News using the key words “genetically modified foods” and the resulting 100 English-language news articles were analyzed for content. Results Only 26% of the articles analyzed were from professional or government sources. Among all content categories, definition or explanation of GMFs with a featured product as an example had the highest coverage, being addressed in 74% of the sample. Identification of GMFs from food labels (p = .001), was significantly associated with the source of the article (p > .05). Conclusions Opportunities exist for scientists, educators, and health experts to present evidence-based and science-based information, with a balanced emphasis on the risks and benefits of GMFs to help consumers to make well-informed choices.

show abstract

“…Consumers’ prior beliefs about GMOs could also play a role in how much a labeling policy impacts them. Previous research showed that most individuals do not know enough details to establish their own perspectives on new technologies and scientific developments (Fernbach and Light 2020) and accept the position of others they trust (Sloman and Fernbach 2018). As a result, we anticipate that consumers in the middle, who neither like nor dislike GM products, are affected the most by the label format policy makers select.…”

Section: Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The controversy around GM foods also relates to the growing literature on science denial (Sloman and Fernbach 2018) that identifies social mechanisms as the basis for extreme confidence in beliefs that contradict scientific consensus (Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, and Braman 2011). Specifically, many people have insufficient information to establish their own opinions on new technologies and scientific developments (Fernbach and Light 2020) and instead accept the opinions of people they trust (Sloman and Fernbach 2018). Well-known examples of science denial include vaccine safety, global warming and climate change, the rise in antibiotic resistance, and the safety of GM foods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice

Kim¹,

Kim²,

Arora³

2022

Journal of Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most scientists claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods are safe for human consumption and offer societal benefits such as better nutritional content. In contrast, many consumers remain skeptical about their safety. Against this backdrop of diverging views, the authors investigate the impact of different GMO labeling policy regimes on products consumers choose. Guided by the literature on negativity bias, structural alignment theory, and message presentation, and based on findings from four experiments, authors show that consumer demand for GM foods depends on the labeling regime policymakers adopt. Both absence-focused (“non-GMO”) and presence-focused (“contains GMO”) labeling regimes reduce the market share of GM foods, with the reduction being greater in the latter case. GMO labels reduce the importance consumers place on price and enhance their willingness-to-pay for non-GM products. Results indicate that specific label design choices policymakers implement (in the form of color and style) also affect consumer responses to GM labeling. Consumer attitudes toward GMOs moderate this effect – consumers with neutral attitudes toward GMOs are influenced most significantly by the label design.

show abstract

Knowledge is Shared

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

Keep your enemies close: Adversarial collaborations will improve behavioral science.

The landscape of online news regarding genetically modified foods: A cross-sectional study

GMO Labeling Policy and Consumer Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About