Experiments in Lay Cues to the Relative Validity of Positions Taken by Disputing Groups of Scientists.

摘要: Risk analysis and hazard management can prompt varied intra-scientific disputes, some which have or will become public, thus potentially available for lay judgments of the relative validity positions taken. As attentive laypeople may include elites as well general understanding whether how cues to credibility disputing groups scientists might shape those be important. Relevant literatures from philosophy, social studies science, risk analysis, elsewhere identified potential cues, but not tested their absolute effects. Two experiments with U.S. online panel members multiple (e.g., credentials, experience, majority opinions, research quality) across topics varying in familiarity subject actual intra-science disputes (dark matter, marijuana, sea-level rise). If supported a position, were more likely choose it relatively valid, information quality, "vote," degree source strongest, interest, demographic, values similarity weakest, cues. These results similar overall rankings implicit cue reliability ratings an earlier survey. Proposed moderators generally nonsignificant, topic subjective knowledge tended reduce Further confirm extend these findings inform both theory about citizen engagement scientific practice communication science risk.