Research shows that attitudes toward science and knowledge are correlated.
Little knowledge breeds tremendous confidence.
One of the lead authors of a
recent study
that was published in Nature Human Behavior, Dr. Cristina Mendonça, states
that "overconfidence has long been recognized as a critical problem in
judgment and decision making. It occurs when individuals subjectively assess
their aptitude to be higher than their objective accuracy." Previous studies
have demonstrated that errors in the internal representation of correctness
can have serious repercussions, but detecting these errors is by no means
simple."
Overconfidence in scientific knowledge may be especially important since it
may affect behavior, put public policies at risk, and even endanger health
when people are unaware of their own ignorance.
In the study that was just published, researchers looked at four sizable
surveys that were carried out in Europe and the United States during a
30-year period. Their goal was to create a unique confidence measure that
would be indirect, independent of scales, and useful in a variety of
situations.
The research team developed a ratio of incorrect to "Don't Know" answers as
an overconfidence metric, arguing that incorrect answers could indicate
situations where respondents believed they knew the answer but were
mistaken, demonstrating overconfidence. The team used surveys with the
format "True," "False," and "Don't know." Dr. Mendonça stated, "This metric
has the advantages of being easy to replicate and not requiring individuals
to explicitly state how confident they are or to compare themselves to
others."
Two important conclusions were drawn from the data. Initially,
overconfidence peaked at intermediate knowledge levels and grew more quickly
than knowledge. Second, the least favourable opinions about science were
likewise shown by respondents with intermediate understanding and strong
confidence.
André Mata, a research author, states that "this combination of negative
attitudes towards science and overconfidence is dangerous, as it can lead to
the dissemination of false information and conspiracy theories, in both
cases with great confidence."
The researchers employed two direct, non-comparative measurements of trust,
a new survey, and a quantitative analysis of the work of other colleagues to
corroborate their results. These methods supported the pattern that trust
grows more quickly than knowledge.
These findings have broad ramifications and call into question accepted
beliefs about effective scientific communication techniques.
Dr. Gonçalves-Sá, the organizer of the project, states that "Simplifying
scientific information for broader audiences is often prioritized in science
communication and outreach." Simplifying material may provide a basic level
of understanding, but it may also widen the disparities in overconfidence
between individuals with little to no knowledge and those who do. It's a
popular belief that "a little knowledge is a harmful thing," and that may
very well be true when it comes to scientific information at least."
Therefore, the study implies that initiatives to advance knowledge may have
unanticipated consequences if they are not matched by an equal effort to
raise awareness of how much still needs to be known. It also implies that as
those with intermediate knowledge comprise the bulk of the population and
generally have the least favourable attitudes about science, initiatives
should be directed towards them.
However, the researchers issue a warning that surveys that severely punish
incorrect responses and subjects outside of science may not be able to use
their confidence metric. Additionally, while individual and cultural
variations were noted, the study did not establish causation.
In summary, this research advocates for more investigation into integrative
measures that are capable of precisely measuring knowledge and confidence
while accounting for possible construct disparities.
