Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39110276›Full record

ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024

Evidence-based scientific thinking and decision-making in everyday life.

Caitlin Dawson, Hanna Julku, Milla Pihlajamäki, Johanna K Kaakinen, Jonathan W Schooler, Jaana Simola

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. 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. Article
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

6 authors.

Caitlin DawsonDepartment of Education, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00170, Helsinki, Finland. caitlin.dawson@helsinki.fi.ORCID 0000-0003-3662-4184
Hanna JulkuDepartment of Education, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00170, Helsinki, Finland.
Milla PihlajamäkiDepartment of Education, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00170, Helsinki, Finland.
Johanna K KaakinenDepartment of Psychology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Turku, 20014, Turku, Finland.
Jonathan W SchoolerDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California Santa Barbara, Building 251, Santa Barbara, 93106, USA.
Jaana SimolaDepartment of Education, University of Helsinki, Siltavuorenpenger 3A, 00170, Helsinki, Finland.

Funding

Strategic Research Council 335233Strategic Research Council 335236Strategic Research Council 358272
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In today's knowledge economy, it is critical to make decisions based on high-quality evidence. Science-related decision-making is thought to rely on a complex interplay of reasoning skills, cognitive styles, attitudes, and motivations toward information. By investigating the relationship between individual differences and behaviors related to evidence-based decision-making, our aim was to better understand how adults engage with scientific information in everyday life. First, we used a data-driven exploratory approach to identify four latent factors in a large set of measures related to cognitive skills and epistemic attitudes. The resulting structure suggests that key factors include curiosity and positive attitudes toward science, prosociality, cognitive skills, and openmindedness to new information. Second, we investigated whether these factors predicted behavior in a naturalistic decision-making task. In the task, participants were introduced to a real science-related petition and were asked to read six online articles related to the petition, which varied in scientific quality, while deciding how to vote. We demonstrate that curiosity and positive science attitudes, cognitive flexibility, prosociality and emotional states, were related to engaging with information and discernment of evidence reliability. We further found that that social authority is a powerful cue for source credibility, even above the actual quality and relevance of the sources. Our results highlight that individual motivating factors toward information engagement, like curiosity, and social factors such as social authority are important drivers of how adults judge the credibility of everyday sources of scientific information.

Indexed as

Decision MakingThinkingAdolescentAdultAttitudeExploratory BehaviorFemaleHumansIndividualityMaleMiddle AgedScienceSocial BehaviorYoung AdultCuriosityDecision-makingEpistemic cognitionIndividual differencesInformation-seekingMotivated reasoningScientific evidenceThinking styles

Identifiers

PMID39110276
PMCPMC11306497

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.