پرسشنامه توضیح متناقض ادعای علمی : اندازه گیری توضیحات عادی برای درگیری در علم

Making personally relevant decisions frequently confronts laypersons with contradictory science-based knowledge claims. Their subjective explanations of why scientists contradict each other on the same topic may influence how they evaluate claims and competing sources. Based on qualitative research, the Explaining Conflicting Scientific Claims (ECSC) questionnaire was developed to measure individuals’ causal assumptions. Two studies report on its dimensionality, reliability, and validity. Factor analyses confirmed that scientific conflicts could be explained in terms of four stable dimensions: Researchers’ Motivation, Differences in Research Processes, Differences in Researchers’ Competence, and the Thematic Complexity of the research subject. The questionnaire’s validity was confirmed by the way it sensitively tapped the effect of source information on laypersons’ assumptions. Laypersons’ explanations were shown to be influenced by beliefs about the nature of knowledge and beliefs about the social practice of science. The relevance of these causal assumptions is discussed and possible applications of the ECSC are sketched.