SYMPOSIUMCRITICAL THINKING AND EVALUATION OF
SCIENTIFIC AND HEALTH-RELATED INFORMATION
批判的思考は、21世紀において発達させる必要がある最も重要なスキルの一つである。批判的思考は、近代社会にあふれる情報を解明するために必要不可欠である。特に科学と健康に関連した情報を評価するためには重要である。このミニ・シンポでは、ミュンスター大学のLisa Scharrer博士とチャールズ・スタート大学のRachel Dryer博士が最新の重要な研究結果を紹介し、彼女らと参加者によるディスカッションを実施する。
Critical thinking is one of the most important skills that people living in the 21st Century need to develop. Critical thinking is necessary to make sense of information that is ubiquitous in modern societies. Particularly important is the evaluation of the quality of scientific and health-related information, as the outcomes of such evaluation could have significant impact on the wellbeing of people. For instance, if we make serious errors in such evaluation and believe in erroneous information, there could be serious detrimental effects on our physical and mental health as well as many other aspects of our life.
This mini-symposium will present some important new research findings in this topic area from Dr Lisa Scharrer (University of Munster, Germany) and Dr Rachel Dryer (Charles Sturt University, Australia). There will be opportunities not only to listen to their presentations, but also to discuss with them international perspectives on various theoretical, research, and educational issues in critical thinking and evaluation.
Dr Rachel Dryer, オーストラリアチャールズ・スタート大学心理学研究科上級講師
Dr Lisa Scharrer, ドイツミュンスター大学心理学部研究員
15：00～15：15 Critical Evaluation について概説 マナロ先生
15：15～16：15 講演 Lisa Scharrer,PhD ドイツミュンスター大学
Don’t make yourself the measure of all things: Potential biases when
laypeople evaluate scientific information
16：15～17：15 講演 Rachel Dryer, PhD チャールズ・スタート大学
What effect does Theory of Mind ability and “Unpacking” information
have on people’s ability to critically evaluate health-related information?
Rachel Dryer abstract
What effect does Theory of Mind ability and “Unpacking” information have on people’s ability to critically evaluate health-related information?
In today’s modern society, the internet has become a popular way of accessing health-related information. However, the information available through this mass media outlet can be conflicting and can vary greatly with regards to quality, reliability and accuracy. It is left to consumers to choose among, evaluate and decide on the veracity of the information available. Previous studies have identified that both individual and task-related factors influence critical evaluation ability. One factor that has not been sufficiently examined in relation to this issue is Theory of Mind (ToM) – the ability to think about how what other people might be thinking. Given that discerning different perspectives and motivations is important in critical evaluation, ToM ability is likely to influence a person’s ability to undertake such evaluations. This talk will present the results of a study that investigated whether: (a) ToM ability has an influence on critical evaluation ability; and (b) better critical evaluations are made when the information is broken down into its key components versus when it is presented in an integrated manner (i.e., “packed” versus “unpacked”).
Lisa Scharrer abstract
Don’t make yourself the measure of all things: Potential biases when laypeople evaluate scientific information
Making informed decisions in their daily lives or learning about science-related issues in informal settings often requires laypeople to evaluate the validity of relevant scientific or socio-scientific knowledge claims. Because they usually lack the deep-level knowledge to evaluate scientific contents directly, laypeople need to be especially careful not to engage in inadequate evaluation practices. The talk will address two biases laypeople may display when evaluating scientific information, both of which can arise when laypeople give too much weigh to their own understanding of and opinion about the subject matter: First, the ease by which science-related information can be processed affects laypeople’s confidence in their own evaluative judgment. Laypeople rely more on their judgment and are less willing to ask an expert for advice after reading information that is easy to follow than after reading information that is more difficult to understand. Second, when laypeople encounter scientific information that has ethical implications, their own ethical stance towards the issue can blind them toward a possible source bias. Empirical work will be presented on both biases, including considerations and findings about their boundary conditions.