Abstract
Public debates about socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change or violent video games) are often accompanied by attacks on the reputation of the involved scientists. Drawing on the social identity approach, we report a minimal group experiment investigating the conditions under which scientists are perceived as non-prototypical, non-reputable, and incompetent. Results show that in-group affirming and threatening scientific findings (compared to a control condition) both alter laypersons’ evaluations of the study: in-group affirming findings lead to more positive and in-group threatening findings to more negative evaluations. However, only in-group threatening findings alter laypersons’ perceptions of the scientists who published the study: scientists were perceived as less prototypical, less reputable, and less competent when their research results imply a threat to participants’ social identity compared to a non-threat condition. Our findings add to the literature on science reception research and have implications for understanding the public engagement with science.
Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
---|---|
Publikationsform: | Publisher's Version |
Fakultät: | Psychologie und Pädagogik > Department Psychologie > Sozialpsychologie |
Themengebiete: | 100 Philosophie und Psychologie > 150 Psychologie |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Dokumenten ID: | 77670 |
Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 26. Okt. 2021, 17:15 |
Letzte Änderungen: | 26. Okt. 2021, 17:15 |