"Non-replicated"? The "motivated numeracy effect"?! Forgeddaboutit!
Limited edition--hurry up & get yours now for free!
Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing
What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?
Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem
Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines
Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government
Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down
Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law
Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change
"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction
Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment
Fixing the Communications Failure
Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change
The Cognitively Illiberal State
Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study
Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology
Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris
Cultural Cognition and Public Policy
Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases
Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect
Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk
Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk
Democracy and the Science Communication Environment
The Cultural Cognition of Risk: Theory, Evidence, Implications
Cultural Cognition and the Challenge of Science Communication
NSF Press Event: Cultural Cognition of HPV Vaccine Risk
Laws of Cultural Cognition and the Cultural Cognition of Law
Protecting the Science Communication Environment
Climate Science Communication & the Disentanglement Principle
Limited edition--hurry up & get yours now for free!
Reader Comments (5)
Dan,
What is your opinion on the positive result from B&S - which seems like a replication of the effect much discussed by Mercier & Sperber (evaluation of reasons functions more rationally than generation of reasons)? Is their study still too underpowered for that as well?
@Jonathan-- I think the result is interesting but I know the literature on giving reasons is actually pretty broad, and I'm not sure how this fits in.
Yes, the sample still is a problem. Underpowered studies can generate misleadingly inflated effects, as Gelman has stressed and as psychologists seem to be catching on to. But just as bad is the use of students for a study like this. They are already high in measures of CRT & numeracy, etc. What is like for *those* types to "give reasons" could be very different from what it is like when people of modest cogntive reflection & other critical reasoning skills do same task.
To Jonathan's second question:
"A study with low statistical power has a reduced chance of detecting a true effect, but it is less well appreciated that low power also reduces the likelihood that a statistically significant result reflects a true effect."
https://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v14/n5/full/nrn3475.html
Makes me wonder why they didn't realize they were wasting their time on this study.
Perhaps because Ballarini is an undergrad (class of '18) - so could this be a "get your feet wet" study, also with low lab resources to dedicate to non-grads resulting in low power?
@Jonathan-- the 2d author, in my opinion bears responsibility.He was advisor of Senior thesis & knows that the small n is a huge problem. Ballarini shoudl get an "A" for paper. But it was 2d author's bad judgment that resulted in it being launched into stream of scholarly exchange in this form.