Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37588403›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2019

Obstacles to the spread of unintuitive beliefs.

Hugo Mercier, Yoshimasa Majima, Nicolas Claidière, Jessica Léone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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.

Hugo MercierInstitut Jean Nicod, Département d'études cognitives, ENS, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS, Paris France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0575-7913
Yoshimasa MajimaHokusei Gakuen University, Sapporo, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3579-1546
Nicolas ClaidièreAix Marseille Université, CNRS, LPC UMR 7290, 13331, Marseille, France.
Jessica LéoneInstitut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod, UMR 5304, CNRS and Université de Lyon, Bron, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many socially significant beliefs are unintuitive, from the harmlessness of GMOs to the efficacy of vaccination, and they are acquired via deference toward individuals who are more confident, more competent or a majority. In the two-step flow model of communication, a first group of individuals acquires some beliefs through deference and then spreads these beliefs more broadly. Ideally, these individuals should be able to explain why they deferred to a given source - to provide arguments from expertise - and others should find these arguments convincing. We test these requirements using a perceptual task with participants from the US and Japan. In Experiment 1, participants were provided with first-hand evidence that they should defer to an expert, leading a majority of participants to adopt the expert's answer. However, when attempting to pass on this answer, only a minority of those participants used arguments from expertise. In Experiment 2, participants receive an argument from expertise describing the expert's competence, instead of witnessing it first-hand. This leads to a significant drop in deference compared with Experiment 1. These experiments highlight significant obstacles to the transmission of unintuitive beliefs.

Indexed as

argument from expertisecultural evolutiondeferencedescription–experience gapUnintuitive beliefs

Identifiers

PMID37588403
PMCPMC10427286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.