An Audience-Centered Analysis of Cues to Which Group of Disputing Scientists is More Credible

2022 · doi:10.32388/7aip0e
preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14 ⓘ

Lay Americans perceive scientists' experience, research quality, and credentials as most reliable for determining the correct side in scientific disputes.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-14 · read from full text ⓘ

The paper studies how audiences decide which group of disputing scientists appears more credible, analyzing the role of audience-centered cues rather than focusing on scientific evidence itself. Using an audience-centered analytical approach, it reports that perceived credibility varies with the cues presented about the scientists and their disputing status. A stated limitation is that the conclusions are based on the particular cue framework and audience perspective examined in the analysis, rather than on an empirical comparison across domains. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Americans evaluated 22 cues laypeople might use to decide which group of disagreeing scientists is more likely correct, rating _perceptions_ of the cue’s reliability in determining the more valid side, its availability in their information sources, and average Americans’ ability to use it effectively, plus self-reported cue use. Overall scientists’ experience, research quality, and credentials rated highest on these “expressed value” criteria, findings which can complement future “normative value” (e.g., expert judgments of cues’ reliability, availability, and usability) and “persuasive value” (whether exposure to a cue changes lay views) research advancing theory and practice regarding lay assessment of intra-science disputes.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00