References
- Ajzen, I. (2020). The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(4), 314–324. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.195
- Asterhan, C. S. C. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 66–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.05.002
- Barzilai, S., Thomm, E., & Shlomi-Elooz, T. (2020). Dealing with disagreement: The roles of topic familiarity and disagreement explanation in evaluation of conflicting expert claims and sources. Learning and Instruction, 69, 101367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101367
- Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The public’s bounded understanding of science. Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
- Bromme, R., Thomm, E., & Wolf, V. (2015). From understanding to deference: Laypersons’ and medical students’ views on conflicts within medicine. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(1), 68–91. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2013.849017
- Bromme, R., & Thomm, E. (2016). Knowing who knows: Laypersons’ capabilities to judge experts’ pertinence for science topics. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 241–252. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12252
- Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86(2), 127–137.
- Cologna, V., Knutti, R., Oreskes, N., & Siegrist, M. (2021). Majority of German citizens, US citizens and climate scientists support policy advocacy by climate researchers and expect greater political engagement. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), 024011. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4ac
- Dinsmore, D. L., Zoellner, B. P., Parkinson, M. M., Rossi, A. M., Monk, M. J., & Vinnachi, J. (2017). The effects of different types of text and individual differences on view complexity about genetically modified organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 791–813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1298871
- Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560187
- Elliott, K. C., McCright, A. M., Allen, S., & Dietz, T. (2017). Values in environmental research: Citizens’ views of scientists who acknowledge values. PLOS ONE, 12(10), e0186049. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186049
- Feinstein, N. W., & Waddington, D. I. (2020). Individual truth judgments or purposeful, collective sensemaking? Rethinking science education’s response to the post-truth era. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1780130
- Felton, M., Garcia-Mila, M., Villarroel, C., & Gilabert, S. (2015). Arguing collaboratively: Argumentative discourse types and their potential for knowledge building. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12078
- Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Sodian, B., Hussmann, H., Pekrun, R., Neuhaus, B., Dorner, B., Pankofer, S., Fischer, M., Strijbos, J.-W., Heene, M., & Eberle, J. (2014). Scientific reasoning and argumentation: Advancing an interdisciplinary research agenda in education. Frontline Learning Research, 2(3), 28–45 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v2i2.96.
- Fisher, M., Knobe, J., Strickland, B., & Keil, F. C. (2017). The influence of social interaction on intuitions of objectivity and subjectivity. Cognitive Science, 41(4), 1119–1134. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12380
- 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(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2017-0037
- Fortner, R. W., Lee, J.-Y., Corney, J. R., Romanello, S., Bonnell, J., Luthy, B., Figuerido, C., & Ntsiko, N. (2000). Public understanding of climate change: Certainty and willingness to act. Environmental Education Research, 6(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/713664673
- Frantz, C. M., & Mayer, F. S. (2009). The emergency of climate change: Why are we failing to take action? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 205–222. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01180.x
- Gifford, R., Kormos, C., & McIntyre, A. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Climate Change, 2(6), 801–827. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143
- Governor, D., Lombardi, D., & Duffield, C. (2021). Negotiations in scientific argumentation: An interpersonal analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(9), 1389–1424. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21713
- Hendriks, F., Mayweg-Paus, E., Felton, M., Iordanou, K., Jucks, R., & Zimmermann, M. (2020). Constraints and affordances of online engagement with scientific information—A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 3458. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.572744
- Hoyle, R. H., Davisson, E. K., Diebels, K. J., & Leary, M. R. (2016). Holding specific views with humility: Conceptualization and measurement of specific intellectual humility. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 165–172. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.043
- Jucks, R., & Mayweg-Paus, E. (2016). Learning through communication: How arguing about scientific information contributes to learning. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 75–77. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000170
- Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence marking, prior knowledge, and comprehension of informative and persuasive texts: Sorting things out. Discourse Processes, 45(4–5), 323–345. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530802145486
- Kienhues, D., Hendriks, F., & Bromme, R. (2019, August). Identifying strategies in dealing with science-based information. [Paper presentation]. 18th Biennial Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Aachen, Germany.
- Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2020). Sealing the gateways for post-truthism: Reestablishing the epistemic authority of science. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1784012
- Koetke, J., Schumann, K., & Porter, T. (2021). Intellectual humility predicts scrutiny of COVID-19 misinformation. Social Psychological and Personality Science 13 (1) , 277–284. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620988242
- König, L., & Jucks, R. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519833903
- Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.107
- Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
- Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Haggard, M. C., LaBouff, J. P., & Rowatt, W. C. (2020). Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 15(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1579359
- Lapsley, D., & Chaloner, D. (2020). Post-truth and science identity: A virtue-based approach to science education. Educational Psychologist, 55(3), 132–143. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1778480
- Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(6), 793–813. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217697695
- Lombrozo, T. (2011). The instrumental value of explanations: Value of explanations. Philosophy Compass, 6(8), 539–551. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2011.00413.x
- Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2018). Conflicting evidence or conflicting opinions? Two-sided expert discussions contribute to experts’ trustworthiness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(2), 203–223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17716102
- McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x
- McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E. L., & Hook, J. N. (2019). Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(3), 393–404. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2018.1460686
- Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968
- Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.06.001
- Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized Eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434–447. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
- Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
- Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity, 17(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2017.1361861
- Rabb, N., Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. A. (2019). Individual representation in a community of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(10), 891–902. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.011
- Rabb, N., Han, J. J., & Sloman, S. A. (2020). How others drive our sense of understanding of policies. Behavioural Public Policy 5 (4) , 454–479. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.40
- Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187
- Rogelj, J., Popp, A., Calvin, K. V., Luderer, G., Emmerling, J., Gernaat, D., Fujimori, S., Strefler, J., Hasegawa, T., Marangoni, G., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Doelman, J., Drouet, L., Edmonds, J., Fricko, O., Harmsen, M., … Tavoni, M. (2018). Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nature Climate Change, 8(4), 325–332. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0091-3
- Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019). Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7662–7669. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115
- 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(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
- Special Eurobarometer 513. (2021). European Commission. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2834/437
- Thiebach, M., Mayweg-Paus, E., & Jucks, R. (2016). Better to agree or disagree? The role of critical questioning and elaboration in argumentative discourse. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie, 30(2–3), 133–149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000174
- Tkotz, J., Kienhues, D., Jucks, R., & Bromme, R. (2021). Keep calm in heated debates: How people perceive different styles of discourse in a scientific debate. Frontiers in Education, 5, 304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.572503
- Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004). Source credibility and attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11
- Villarroel, C., Felton, M., & Garcia-Mila, M. (2016). Arguing against confirmation bias: The effect of argumentative discourse goals on the use of disconfirming evidence in written argument. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 167–179. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.06.009
- Winter, S., Krämer, N. C., Rösner, L., & Neubaum, G. (2015). Don’t keep it (too) simple: How textual representations of scientific uncertainty affect laypersons’ attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 34(3), 251–272. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14555872
- Xie, B., Brewer, M. B., Hayes, B. K., McDonald, R. I., & Newell, B. R. (2019). Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331
- Zelenika, I., Moreau, T., Lane, O., & Zhao, J. (2018). Sustainability education in a botanical garden promotes environmental knowledge, attitudes and willingness to act. Environmental Education Research, 24(11), 1581–1596. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1492705