Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26747463›Full record

ArticleCognitive processing2016

The impact of epistemological beliefs and cognitive ability on recall and critical evaluation of scientific information.

Insa Feinkohl, Danny Flemming, Ulrike Cress, Joachim Kimmerle

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive processing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Insa FeinkohlKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Schleichstr. 6, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany. ifeinkohl@gmail.com.
Danny FlemmingKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Schleichstr. 6, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Ulrike CressKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Schleichstr. 6, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Joachim KimmerleKnowledge Construction Lab, Leibniz-Institut fuer Wissensmedien, Schleichstr. 6, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific research findings are frequently picked up by the mainstream media, but it is largely unclear which factors have an impact on laypeople's processing of the presented scientific information. In this study, we investigated the influence of cognitive and metacognitive inter-individual differences on recall and on critical evaluation of new scientific information that was presented in a journalistic article. Sixty-three participants (80 % female; mean age 24.1 ± 3.3 years) read a newspaper article reporting research findings on a recently developed and yet unproven treatment for depression. We found that more sophisticated, domain-specific epistemological beliefs and a higher cognitive ability were independently associated with better recall of content from the article. Additionally, participants with more sophisticated epistemological beliefs displayed a more critical evaluation of the article. Cognitive ability was unrelated to critical evaluation and to epistemological beliefs. There were also no interaction effects of cognitive ability and epistemological beliefs on recall or on critical evaluation. Based on our preliminary findings and previous evidence of epistemological beliefs as a modifiable feature, we discuss this inter-individual characteristic as a potential target for the promotion of better understanding of scientific topics by the general public.

Indexed as

CultureKnowledgeAcoustic StimulationAdultCognitionComprehensionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndividualityMaleMental RecallSelf ReportYoung AdultCognitive abilityCritical thinkingEpistemological beliefsIntelligenceKnowledgeLearning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.