Gaining insight through explaining? How generating explanations affects individuals’ perceptions of their own and of experts’ knowledge

Figures & data

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of assumed knowledge ratings, split up by experimental group as well as by pre-rating and post-rating.

	Pre-rating		Post-rating
Group	M	SD	M	SD
Assumed topic knowledge
Reading	2.12	1.19	3.30	1.22
Explanation	2.24	1.21	3.41	1.20
Field experts’ assumed topic knowledge
Reading	4.83	1.35	5.39	1.17
Explanation	4.49	1.44	5.48	1.14
Assumed scientific method knowledge
Reading	1.89	1.14	3.25	1.28
Explanation	1.92	1.11	3.30	1.20
Field experts’ assumed scientific method knowledge
Reading	4.84	1.53	5.54	1.14
Explanation	4.72	1.48	5.62	1.05

Figure 1. Participants’ mean values for assumed knowledge ratings, split by experimental group as well as by pre-rating and post-rating.

Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 2. Mean values for assumed scientific method knowledge ratings, split by experimental group as well as by pre-rating and post-rating.

Note. Error bars represent standard errors.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for reported strategies and intellectual humility by experimental group.

		Reading group			Explanation group
	N	M	SD	N	M	SD
Source evaluation	76	3.11	0.867	79	3.09	0.811
Content evaluation	76	4.11	0.771	79	3.89	0.786
Reliance on one's own knowledge	76	1.57	0.608	79	1.8	0.709
Searching for further information	76	3.54	0.996	79	3.43	0.904
Deference to experts	76	3.71	0.980	79	3.43	1.03
Intellectual humility	76	4.36	0.520	79	4.26	0.533

Table 3. Correlations between assumed (scientific method) knowledge, strategies for coping with the division of cognitive labour and intellectual humility.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Assumed topic knowledge	–
2. Assumed method knowledge	0.794***	–
3. Experts’ assumed topic knowledge	0.330***	0.270***	–
4. Experts’ assumed method knowledge	0.349***	0.318***	0.855***	–
5. Source evaluation	0.146	0.067	0.088	0.166*	–
6. Content evaluation	0.114	0.067	0.062	0.061	0.390***	–
7. Own reliance	0.042	0.106	−0.073	−0.134	−0.199*	−0.194*	–
8. Searching for further information	0.097	0.044	0.152	0.189*	0.388***	0.411***	−0.118	–
9. Deference to experts	0.192*	0.172*	0.068	0.141	0.579***	0.468***	−0.189*	0.374***	–
10. Intellectual humility	−0.143	−0.201*	−0.015	−0.025	0.204*	0.371***	−0.326***	0.184*	0.218**	–
11. Assumed knowledge gap^†	−0.607***	−0.475***	0.550***	0.411***	−0.055	−0.048	−0.099	0.042	−0.113	0.114	–
12. Assumed method knowledge gap^‡	−0.439***	−0.651***	0.440***	0.513***	0.072	−0.012	−0.203*	0.111	−0.043	0.163*	0.759***	–

† Value reflects the difference between what participants assume to know and what they assume the experts to know about the topic, ‡ Value reflects the difference between what participants assume to know and what they assume the experts to know about the scientific method.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .00.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available in the ZPID repository (https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/2778).