“Probably true” says the expert: how two types of lexical hedges influence students’ evaluation of scientificness

Thiebach, Monja; Mayweg-Paus, Elisabeth; Jucks, Regina

doi:10.1007/s10212-014-0243-4

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After reading an article in which a scientist is quoted making clear statements about the uncertainty of his results, participants perceive the expert as more trustworthy than after reading an article in which such uncertainty is absent. Thus, this study confirms the finding by Jensen (2008) that uncertainty communication positively affects scientists' trustworthiness, and disconfirms opposite findings in studies indicating that uncertainty may have no effect on related variables such as trust in scientific professions in general, or argument credibility and scientist's expertise (Jensen, 2008;Jensen et al, 2011;Thiebach et al, 2015). Moreover, for the first time, this study provides evidence that trusting a scientist leads to greater willingness to donate money to his or her research.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…In fact, the evidence is quite mixed. Empirical research on the effects of uncertainty communication on perceptions of science or scientists sometimes yields positive effects (Crismore and Vande Kopple, 1997;Jensen, 2008;Retzbach et al, 2016), and sometimes yields no effects (Binder, Hillback, and Brossard, 2016;Jensen et al, 2011;Ratcliff, Jensen, Christy, Crossley, and Krakow, 2018;Thiebach, Mayweg-Paus, and Jucks, 2015;Winter, Kramer, Rosner, and Neubaum, 2015). These contradictory findings show that uncertainty has different effects in different contexts.…”

Section: Uncertainty and Tentativeness Are Core Features Of The Scienmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the perceived expertise of specific scientists, trust in medical professions, argument credibility, and personal certainty about technological risks appear not to be affected by uncertainty communication (Binder et al, 2016;Jensen, 2008;Jensen et al, 2011;Thiebach et al, 2015, Winter et al, 2015. Most notably, Ratcliff et al (2018) failed to replicate Jensen's preliminary results in a larger sample, finding no effect of uncertainty on scientist credibility in health news.…”

Section: Trust In Science and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractPrevious research has shown that uncertainty communication by scientists (i. e., expressing reservations towards their own research) increases the public’s trust in their work. The reasons for this have not been elucidated, however. In the present study, we provide a theoretical explanation for this phenomenon. Specifically, we expected that attributed communicator bias would mediate the effect of uncertainty communication on trust. Results from a mixed-design experiment (N = 88), using modified science news articles, revealed support for this hypothesis. Positive effects of uncertainty communication on trust and donation intention were both mediated by attributed communicator bias.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Uncertainty and Tentativeness Are Core Features Of The Scienmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Trust In Science and Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Politeness theory has introduced the concept of face threats, e.g., affronts to a person's autonomy and/or needs of belonging. These face threats are mitigated via communicational behavior, such as hedges [45] and relativizing words.…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

Jucks¹,

Linnemann²,

Brummernhenrich³

2018

Advances in Human-Computer Interaction

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicating with spoken dialogue systems (SDS) such as Apple’s Siri® and Google’s Now is becoming more and more common. We report a study that manipulates an SDS’s word use with regard to politeness. In an experiment, 58 young adults evaluated the spoken messages of our self-developed SDS as it replied to typical questions posed by university freshmen. The answers were either formulated politely or rudely. Dependent measures were both holistic measures of how students perceived the SDS as well as detailed evaluations of each single answer. Results show that participants not only evaluated the content of rude answers as being less appropriate and less pleasant than the polite answers, but also evaluated the rude system as less accurate. Lack of politeness also impacted aspects of the perceived trustworthiness of the SDS. We conclude that users of SDS expect such systems to be polite, and we then discuss some practical implications for designing SDS.

show abstract

“…Relevant hints on evaluating expert discussions may be found in how experts communicate their views and base them on research findings. In this context, previous research has stressed the role of textual features that point to the scientificness of the information provided (Jensen, 2008; Mayweg-Paus & Jucks, 2014; Thiebach, Mayweg-Paus, & Jucks, 2015) or the use of citations (Thomm & Bromme, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflicting Evidence or Conflicting Opinions? Two-Sided Expert Discussions Contribute to Experts’ Trustworthiness

Mayweg-Paus

Jucks

2017

Journal of Language and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how the way pro and contra information is distributed between two experts in a written discourse influence readers' evaluations. One hundred and fifty university students read an expert discussion on the topic of computer use in childhood. Information was presented in either a one-sided (each expert holds one position: pro or contra) or two-sided way (both experts provide pro and contra arguments). Results showed that readers judged experts who communicated more consensus-oriented by taking a two-sided stance to be more trustworthy. Additionally, readers in this group subsequently outlined their own opinion toward the topic more confidently. However, the manipulation did not influence how far readers drew on expert information when formulating a response to a writing task. Implications are drawn for helping readers to process expert discussions and for improving expert communication strategies. It is emphasized that expert discussions provide not only content-focused but also rhetorical challenges.

show abstract

“Probably true” says the expert: how two types of lexical hedges influence students’ evaluation of scientificness

Cited by 28 publications

References 27 publications

Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

Two-sided science: Communicating scientific uncertainty increases trust in scientists and donation intention by decreasing attribution of communicator bias

Student Evaluations of a (Rude) Spoken Dialogue System Insights from an Experimental Study

Conflicting Evidence or Conflicting Opinions? Two-Sided Expert Discussions Contribute to Experts’ Trustworthiness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About