Science-utility and science-trust associations and how they relate to knowledge about how science works

Abstract

Knowledge about how science works, trust in scientists, and the perceived utility of science currently appear to be eroding in these times in which “alternative facts” or personal experiences and opinions are used as arguments. Yet, in many situations, it would be beneficial for the individual and all of society if scientific findings were considered in decision-making. For this to happen, people have to trust in scientists and perceive science as useful. Still, in university contexts, it might not be desirable to report negative beliefs about science. In addition, science-utility and science-trust associations may differ from explicit beliefs because associations were learned through the co-occurrence of stimuli rather than being based on propositional reasoning. We developed two IATs to measure science-utility and science-trust associations in university students and tested the psychometric properties and predictive potential of these measures. In a study of 261 university students, the IATs were found to have good psychometric properties and small correlations with their corresponding self-report scales. Science-utility and science-trust associations predicted knowledge about how science works over and above self-reported beliefs. The results suggest that indirect measures are useful for assessing beliefs about science and can be used to predict outcome measures.

Effects of context and discrepancy when reading multiple documents

“…In the present study, we focus on two belief constructs: trust in science and the perceived utility of science. Whereas the perceived utility of science is the value that is ascribed to science for reaching one’s goals (e.g., Eccles & Wigfield, 2002 ; Schoor & Schütz, 2021 ) trust in science rather covers aspects of whether information provided by science and scientists are trustworthy (see Schoor & Schütz, 2021 ).…”

“…At first sight, beliefs about science sound similar to epistemic beliefs (see Schoor, 2022 ), that is beliefs about the nature of knowledge and knowing (e.g., Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ). However, current conceptualizations of epistemic beliefs differ from beliefs about science.…”

“…In dimensional models (Greene et al, 2008 ), epistemic beliefs are differentiated into dimensions such as certainty of knowledge, simplicity of knowledge, and justification of knowledge (e.g., by authority, by multiple sources, or by personal opinion) (e.g., Ferguson et al, 2013 ; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997 ). Although knowledge can be generated and justified by scientific inquiry, current conceptualizations of epistemic beliefs do not explicitly include it (see Schoor, 2022 ). Consequently, epistemic beliefs correlate only moderately with perceived utility and trust in science (Schoor, 2022 ).…”

“…Although knowledge can be generated and justified by scientific inquiry, current conceptualizations of epistemic beliefs do not explicitly include it (see Schoor, 2022 ). Consequently, epistemic beliefs correlate only moderately with perceived utility and trust in science (Schoor, 2022 ).…”

“…There are two competing hypotheses for how beliefs about science might moderate the context effects in this study. On the one hand, participants who place high trust in science (Nadelson et al, 2014 ) and consider science useful (e.g., Schoor & Schütz, 2021 ) would have academic standards available and be willing to use them in a task. That is they would pay more attention to sources and to creating a documents model in general.…”