Time for an Update

Abstract: Scientific evidence for many effects tends to be ambiguous. Here we investigated how psychological novices update their preexisting beliefs about psychological effects based on ambiguous scientific evidence. Specifically, we investigated various predictors and systematic patterns of belief updating. Participants were presented a series of fictitious hypotheses, accompanied by a series of fictitious study outcomes. For each hypothesis, we assessed participants’ preexisting beliefs and subjective expertise regarding the topic, as well as their posterior beliefs after presentation of scientific evidence. We found a negative effect of subjective expertise and positive effects of trust in psychological science and number of studies investigating an effect on belief updating. We further found evidence for a belief updating pattern according to which participants weight the outcome of the most recent study stronger than that of previous studies. The results advance our understanding of evidence-based belief updating and provide practical implications for science communication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Zeitschrift für Psychologie
Published
2024-09-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000571
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.54

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Time for an Update

Julian Quevedo Pütter, Tobias R. Rebholz, Marcel Raphael Schreiner
2 citations
Zeitschrift für Psychologie
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
0.54
article

Time for an Update

Julian Quevedo Pütter, Tobias R. Rebholz, Marcel Raphael Schreiner
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Abstract: Scientific evidence for many effects tends to be ambiguous. Here we investigated how psychological novices update their preexisting beliefs about psychological effects based on ambiguous scientific evidence. Specifically, we investigated various predictors and systematic patterns of belief updating. Participants were presented a series of fictitious hypotheses, accompanied by a series of fictitious study outcomes. For each hypothesis, we assessed participants’ preexisting beliefs and subjective expertise regarding the topic, as well as their posterior beliefs after presentation of scientific evidence. We found a negative effect of subjective expertise and positive effects of trust in psychological science and number of studies investigating an effect on belief updating. We further found evidence for a belief updating pattern according to which participants weight the outcome of the most recent study stronger than that of previous studies. The results advance our understanding of evidence-based belief updating and provide practical implications for science communication.

Zeitschrift für PsychologieVol. 233(1)
University of Mannheim (DE), University of Tübingen (DE)
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Universität Mannheim
Openalex Percentile: Top 35%
Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
0.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.