Literature DB >> 9471014

Development of scientific reasoning biases: cognitive versus ego-protective explanations.

P A Klaczynski1, G Narasimham.   

Abstract

Two conflicting perspectives have dominated the literature on self-serving reasoning biases. One maintains that individuals have difficulty objectively processing information relevant to their personal theories because they are reluctant to relinquish their cause-effect beliefs relevant to that domain. The ego-protective view claims that such biases arise because they enhance or protect individuals' self-views. These opposing positions were studied with 5th, 8th, and 11th graders. Scientific reasoning improved with age. Analyses of biases, indicated by ratings of evidence quality and written justifications, yielded mixed results regarding developmental trends in reasoning biases. Both theoretical beliefs and ego-protective motivations predicted reasoning biases. An accuracy motivation led to more complex justifications but failed to reduce reasoning biases. Adolescents appear to selectively apply their scientific reasoning skills.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9471014     DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.1.175

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dev Psychol        ISSN: 0012-1649


  4 in total

Review 1.  Is funding source related to study reporting quality in obesity or nutrition randomized control trials in top-tier medical journals?

Authors:  K A Kaiser; S S Cofield; K R Fontaine; S P Glasser; L Thabane; R Chu; S Ambrale; A D Dwary; A Kumar; G Nayyar; O Affuso; M Beasley; D B Allison
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 5.095

2.  Children's competence or adults' incompetence: different developmental trajectories in different tasks.

Authors:  Sarah Furlan; Franca Agnoli; Valerie F Reyna
Journal:  Dev Psychol       Date:  2012-11-12

Review 3.  Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span.

Authors:  Jonell Strough; Tara E Karns; Leo Schlosnagle
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  The effect of ad hominem attacks on the evaluation of claims promoted by scientists.

Authors:  Ralph M Barnes; Heather M Johnston; Noah MacKenzie; Stephanie J Tobin; Chelsea M Taglang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.