Faking science: scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience

References

• American Psychological Association [APA]. (2010). Publication manual (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Ananth, S. (2010). Complementary and alternative medicine survey of hospitals. Washington, DC: Samueli Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Bardia, A., Barton, D. L., Prokop, L. J., Bauer, B. A., & Moynihan, T. J. (2006). Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 5457–5464. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.08.3725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blancke, S., Van Breusegem, F., De Jaeger, G., Braeckman, J., & Van Montagu, M. (2015). Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science, 20, 414–418. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). Irreducible incoherence and intelligent design: A look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85, 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Pigliucci, M. (2015). What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, 28, 1177–1198. doi:10.1080/09515089.2014.971946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Britt, M. A., & Aglinskas, C. (2002). Improving students’ ability to identify and use source information. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 485–522. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casenove, D., & Kirk, S. (2016). A spoonful of science can make science writing more hedged. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20, 138–149.
   Google Scholar
• Chaplin, C., & Shaw, J. (2016). Confidently wrong: Police endorsement of psycho-legal misconceptions. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 208–216. doi:10.1007/s11896-015-9182-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 429, 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 114, 9587–9592. doi:10.1073/pnas.1704882114
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durik, A. M., Britt, M. A., Reynolds, R., & Storey, J. (2008). The effects of hedges in persuasive arguments: A nuanced analysis of language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27(3), 217–234. doi:10.1177/0261927X08317947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer, K. D., & Hall, R. E. (2019). Effect of critical thinking education on epistemically unwarranted beliefs in college students. Research in Higher Education, 60, 1–22. doi:10.1007/s11162-018-9513-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2015). Individual uncertainty and the uncertainty of science: The impact of perceived conflict and general self-efficacy on the perception of tentativeness and credibility of scientific information. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1859. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flemming, D., Feinkohl, I., Cress, U., & Kimmerle, J. (2017). User comments about research findings: How conflictual information in online science journalistic articles influences laypeople’s understanding of scientific tentativeness. Communications, 42, 465–480.
   Google Scholar
• Glick, P., Gottesman, D., & Jolton, J. (1989). The fault is not in the stars: Susceptibility of skeptics and believers in astrology to the Barnum effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 572–583. doi:10.1177/0146167289154010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamilton, L. C., Hartter, J., & Saito, K. (2015). Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open, 5, 215824401560275. doi:10.1177/2158244015602752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 61–77). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harambam, J., & Aupers, S. (2015). Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 466–480. doi:10.1177/0963662514559891
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hogan, T. P., Zaboski, B. A., & Perry, T. R. (2015). College students’ interpretation of research reports on group differences: The Tall-Tale Effect. Statistics Education Research Journal, 14, 90–111.
   Google Scholar
• Horn, K. (2001). The consequences of citing hedged statements in scientific research articles: When scientists cite and paraphrase the conclusions of past research, they often change the hedges that describe the uncertainty of the conclusions, which in turn can change the uncertainty of past results. American Institute of Biological Sciences Bulletin, 51, 1086–1093.
   Google Scholar
• Impey, C. D., Formanek, M., Buxner, S. R., & Wenger, M. C. (2017). Twenty seven years of tracking undergraduate science knowledge and beliefs. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 21, 41–64. doi:http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/viewFile/17315/11409
   Google Scholar
• Inquisit 4 [Computer software]. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.millisecond.com.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, J. D. (2008). Scientific uncertainty in news coverage of cancer research: Effects of hedging on scientists’ and journalists’ credibility. Human Communication Research, 34, 347–369. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keck, D., Kammerer, Y., & Starauschek, E. (2015). Reading science texts online: Does source information influence the identification of contradictions within texts? Computers and Education, 82, 442–449. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.12.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobayashi, K. (2014). Students’ consideration of source information during the reading of multiple texts and its effect on intertextual conflict resolution. Instructional Science, 42, 183–205. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9276-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G., Benson, N., Zaboski, B., & Thibodaux, L. (2016). Cross-battery assessment pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach to the identification of specific learning disorders: Evidence-based practice or pseudoscience? International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 4, 146–157. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1192855
   Google Scholar
• Lassonde, K. A., Kendeou, P., & O’Brien, E. J. (2016). Refutation texts: Overcoming psychology misconceptions that are resistant to change. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2(1), 62–74. doi:10.1037/stl0000054
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106–131. doi:10.1177/1529100612451018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & David, M. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 7–36. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & Landfield, K. (2009). Giving debiasing away: Can psychological research on correcting cognitive errors promote human welfare? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 390–398. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01144.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Lohr, J. M., & Morier, D. (2001). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology: Useful resources. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 182–191. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2803_03
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Lynn, S. J., & Lohr, J. M. (2015). Initial thoughts, reflections, and considerations. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 1–16). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Lohr, J. M., Gist, R., Deacon, B., Devilly, G. J., & Varker, T. (2015). Science- and non-science-based treatments for trauma-related stress disorders. In S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J. Lynn, & J. M. Lohr (Eds.), Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology (pp. 277–321). New York: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Students’ ideas regarding science and pseudo-science in relation to the human body and health. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 3–17. doi:10.5617/nordina.279
   Google Scholar
• Mathie, R. T., Ramparsad, N., Legg, L. A., Clausen, J., Moss, S., Davidson, J. R. T., … McConnachie, A. (2017). Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 6(1), 63. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0445-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matute, H., Yarritu, I., & Vadillo, M. A. (2011). Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. British Journal of Psychology (London, England: 1953), 102, 392–405. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLean, C. P., & Miller, N. A. (2010). Changes in critical thinking skills following a course on science and pseudoscience: A quasi-experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 85–90. doi:10.1080/00986281003626714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meichenbaum, D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). How to spot hype in the field of psychotherapy: A 19-item checklist. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(1), 22–30. doi:10.1037/pro0000172
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2014). Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).
   Google Scholar
• Newport, F. (2010). Four in 10 Americans believe in strict creationism. Gallup. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105–119. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pasquinelli, E. (2012). Neuromyths: Why do they exist and persist? Mind, Brain, and Education, 6, 89–96. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection. Memory and Cognition, 42(1), 1–10. doi:10.3758/s13421-013-0340-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Seli, P., Koehler, D. J., & Fugelsang, J. A. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2009). Many Americans mix multiple faiths. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2009/12/09/many-americans-mix-multiple-faiths/#3
   Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M. (2015). Scientism and pseudoscience: A philosophical commentary. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 12, 569–575. doi:10.1007/s11673-015-9665-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prajapati, B., Dunne, M., & Armstrong, R. (2010). Sample size estimation and statistical power analyses. Optometry Today, 16, 10–18.
   Google Scholar
• Rovira, S. C., & Raffio, V. (2017). The choice of pseudoscientific therapies as an alternative to scientific medicine. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 9(1), 13–17. doi:10.26417/ejis.v9i1.p13-17
   Google Scholar
• Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2014). How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Shermer, M. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Sinatra, G. M., Kienhues, D., & Hofer, B. K. (2014). Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 49, 123–138. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Brummernhenrich, B., & Bromme, R. (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: Readers’ memory for and use of conflicting information from science texts as function of presentation format and source expertise. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 130–150. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769996
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stadtler, M., Scharrer, L., Macedo-Rouet, M., Rouet, J. F., & Bromme, R. (2016). Improving vocational students’ consideration of source information when deciding about science controversies. Reading and Writing, 29, 705–729. doi:10.1007/s11145-016-9623-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strømsø, H. I., Bråten, I., Britt, M. A., & Ferguson, L. E. (2013). Spontaneous sourcing among students reading multiple documents. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 176–203. doi:10.1080/07370008.2013.769994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Thomm, E., & Bromme, R. (2012). It should at least seem scientific!’ Textual features of ‘scientificness’ and their impact on lay assessments of online information. Science Education, 96, 187–211. doi:10.1002/sce.20480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomm, E., Hentschke, J., & Bromme, R. (2015). The Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) Questionnaire: Measuring laypersons’ explanations for conflicts in science. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 139–152. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travers, J. C. (2017). Evaluating claims to avoid pseudoscientific and unproven practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 195–203. doi:10.1177/1053451216659466
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaboski, B. A., Schrack, A. P., Joyce-Beaulieu, D., & MacInnes, J. W. (2017). Broadening our understanding of evidence-based practice: Effective and discredited interventions. Contemporary School Psychology, 21, 287–297. doi:10.1007/s40688-017-0131-4
   Google Scholar