{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024910280768418832, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010344099641123074, 'mean_word_length': 5.730113636363637, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 4, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of information comprehensibility and argument type on lay recipients' readiness to defer to experts when deciding about scientific knowledge claims

Effects of information comprehensibility and argument type on lay recipients’ readiness to defer to experts when deciding about scientific knowledge claims Rainer Bromme (bromme@uni-muenster.de) Institute for Psychology, University of Munster, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Munster, Germany Lisa Scharrer (lisa.scharrer@uni-muenster.de) Institute for Psychology, University of Munster, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Munster, Germany M. Anne Britt (britt@niu.edu) Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, 363 Psychology-Math Building, Dekalb, IL60115, USA Marc Stadtler (stadtlm@uni-muenster.de) Institute for Psychology, University of Munster, Fliednerstrasse 21, 48149 Munster, Germany Abstract The present study investigated whether laypersons are aware of their own knowledge limitations when having to decide about the acceptability of scientific knowledge claims. Specifically, we tested whether laypeople are more prone to discount their actual dependence on experts after having read simplified science depictions. Lay recipients read scientific arguments varying in comprehensibility and argument type and thus in apparent easiness. We assessed participants’ inclination to rely on their own information evaluation rather than to seek out expert advice when deciding about claim acceptability. As expected, results showed lay recipients to be more confident in their own information evaluation and less inclined to turn to an expert for decision support after reading easy compared to difficult depictions. Keywords: knowledge evaluation; expertise; argument comprehensibility; causal explanations; evidence Introduction Whether making up their mind about undergoing specific medical treatment or judging if certain behaviors are detrimental to the environment, laypeople frequently face situations where they need to decide about the acceptability of scientific knowledge claims. The ease of accessing information on the Web has eliminated problems with regards to the availability of science-related knowledge that might act as a basis for an informed judgment. However, a major challenge lies in the evaluation of this information, i.e. its acceptability, usefulness and sufficiency for solving a problem at hand (Bromme, Kienhues & Porsch, 2010). The evaluation of scientific claims is particularly difficult due to the complexity and tentativeness of science knowledge, and it is therefore likely to be beyond laypersons’ epistemic capabilities (Keil, 2008). Advances in science and technology have led to an enormous growth of knowledge. To manage this complexity, science knowledge is organized into different disciplines represented by specialized experts. Thus, throughout our whole lifetime we remain laypersons who depend on advice of pertinent experts regarding most topics. This uneven distribution of knowledge in modern societies will be conceived in the following as a ‘division of cognitive labor’ (Keil et al., 2008). However, for the division of cognitive labor to function successfully, laypeople must be aware of the incompleteness and limitations of their own knowledge. In other words, laypeople have to recognize that in certain situations they are unable to make an informed decision about the veracity of encountered information and instead need to defer to an expert for advice. The present study addresses the question of whether laypeople are aware of the insufficiency of their own knowledge and thus the necessity to rely on the division of cognitive labor when having to come to an informed decision about scientific knowledge claims. Specifically, it was examined whether laypeople’s awareness of their own limitations is decreased whenever scientific information is presented in a way that makes the subject matter appear fairly easy and uncomplicated. Laypeople often encounter scientific information especially prepared for their consumption, i.e. presented in a simplified way to make the contents superficially comprehensible for non-experts (Zimmerman et al., 2001). However, if laypeople encounter such ‘easy’ texts, their understanding may mislead them to judge the subject matter as equally easy, and their mental representations of the described phenomena formed by reading the information as more complete and accurate than they actually are (cf. Goldman & Bisanz, 2002). Such an impression may manifest itself in the conviction that their knowledge and skill does not differ meaningfully from that of an expert. Consequentially, scientific messages that are easy to understand might create the impression that laypeople are