Standard Research Grant: Public Interpretations of and Responses to Scientific Disputes

争论通常被认为对科学进程是有益的，但可能会使了解和参与这种争论的公众对“真相”感到困惑，而不管竞争者的相对数量或有说服力的证据如何，因此专家之间的分歧可能单独或集体地破坏对科学和科学家的信任和支持。潜在的结果可能包括误解一个领域不确定性的真实本质，忽视关于保护自己的专家建议，或者减少对在政策制定或教育中使用科学的支持。本研究系统地评估了不同主题的外行人如何解释、处理和受科学争议的影响：1)外行人如何解释科学家之间的分歧，以及争论的起源和哪一方最可信的线索？2)关于争议话题或科学的哪些信念、态度和行为源于这些外行解释？3)这种解释和对干预措施（例如，科学过程教育）的反应有多大的可塑性？该项目促进了公众对科学理解的理论，包括改变公众对专家争议的解释和反应的条件；帮助科学家调整他们的信息，以消除歧义，减少观察者之间的错误，并加强关于科学和基于科学的政策的公共话语；并对我们理解科学在当代社会中的地位做出了新颖而实质性的贡献。这项研究展示了公众样本场景，涉及公众对不同主题的关注、影响和熟悉程度，如暗物质的性质、理想的饮食盐摄入量或纳米技术等，双方的大规模争议。焦点小组调查人们对示例场景的反应，以及他们如何确定这些问题的答案的基本原理，例如哪一方是“正确的”，以及为什么专家可能不同意。然后，一项实验探究了人们的反应（例如，信任、遵守专家建议的意图、对联邦科学资助的支持）是如何根据专家是50%对50%、99%支持一方还是介于两者之间而变化的，以确定不同比例是否会导致从一种反应到另一种反应的转变。一项调查探讨了知识、价值观、自身利益、历史和计票（即在争议中支持某一方的比例）作为外行对科学争议发生原因的信念（例如，自身利益、无能、主题的内在复杂性）、争议者可信度的线索（例如，该领域的感知不确定性、证书、显著价值相似性、自身利益）和外行对科学家之间争议的反应的相对作用。随后的实验操纵了其中的几个因素，以进一步测试争议属性和公众反应之间的因果关系。

Disputes are usually deemed fruitful to scientific process, but can confuse publics who learn about and attend to such disputes as to "the truth," regardless of contenders' relative numbers or persuasive evidence, so that disagreements among experts may individually or collectively undermine lay trust in and support for science and scientists. Potential outcomes may include misconstruing the true nature of a field's uncertainties, ignoring expert advice on protecting oneself, or reducing support for use of science in polic ymaking or education. This research systematically assesses across varied topics how laypeople interpret, process, and are affected by scientific disputes: 1) How do lay people interpret disagreements among scientists in terms of dispute origins and cues to which of the contending sides is most credible?; 2) What beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors about the disputed topic or science stem from these lay interpretations?; and 3) How malleable are such interpretations and responses to interventions (e.g., education on scientific process)? This project advances theory in public understanding of science, including conditions that alter public interpretations of and responses to expert disputes; helps scientists tailor their messages to remove ambiguities, reduce errors among observers, and enhance public discourse on science and science-based policy; and makes a novel and substantial contribution to our understanding of the place of science in contemporary society.This research shows public samples scenarios involving two-sided mass disputes on topics varying in public salience, impacts, and familiarity, such as the nature of dark matter, desirable dietary salt intake, or nanotechnology. Focus groups probe people's reactions to sample scenarios, and their rationales for how they determine answers to such questions as which side is "correct," and why experts might disagree. An experiment then probes how people's responses (e.g., trust, intentions to comply with expert advice, support for federal funding of science) vary according to whether experts are split 50-50, are 99% in support of one side, or somewhere in between, to determine if different proportions drive shifts from one response to another. A survey probes the relative role of knowledge, values, self-interest, history, and vote-counting (i.e., the proportion of support for a given side in the dispute) as factors in lay beliefs about why scientific disputes occur (e.g., self-interest, incompetence, inherent complexity of the topic), cues to disputants' credibility (e.g., perceived uncertainty of the field, credentials, salient value similarity, self-interest), and lay responses to disputes among scientists. A subsequent experiment manipulates several of these factors to further test the causal relationship between dispute attributes and public responses.