Dataset Information

Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information.

ABSTRACT: In the absence of other information, people put more weight on their own opinion than on the opinion of others: they are conservative. Several proximal mechanisms have been suggested to account for this finding. One of these mechanisms is that people cannot access reasons for other people's opinions, but they can access the reasons for their own opinions-whether they are the actual reasons that led them to hold the opinions (rational access to reasons), or post-hoc constructions (biased access to reasons). In four experiments, participants were asked to provide an opinion, and then faced with another participant's opinion and asked if they wanted to revise their initial opinion. Some questions were manipulated so that the advice participants were receiving was in fact their own opinion, while what they thought was their own opinion was in fact not. In all experiments, the participants were consistently biased towards what they thought was their own opinion, showing that conservativeness cannot be explained by rational access to reasons, which should have favored the advice. One experiment revealed that conservativeness was not decreased under time pressure, suggesting that biased access to reasons is an unlikely explanation for conservativeness. The experiments also suggest that repetition plays a role in advice taking, with repeated opinions being granted more weight than non-fluent opinions. Our results are not consistent with any of the established proximal explanations for conservatism. Instead, we suggest an ultimate explanation-vigilant conservatism-that sees conservatism as adaptive since receivers should be wary of senders' interests, as they rarely perfectly converge with theirs.

SUBMITTER: Trouche E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5762162 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information.

Trouche Emmanuel E Johansson Petter P Hall Lars L Mercier Hugo H

PloS one 20180110 1

In the absence of other information, people put more weight on their own opinion than on the opinion of others: they are conservative. Several proximal mechanisms have been suggested to account for this finding. One of these mechanisms is that people cannot access reasons for other people's opinions, but they can access the reasons for their own opinions-whether they are the actual reasons that led them to hold the opinions (rational access to reasons), or post-hoc constructions (biased access t ...[more]

PMID: 29320515

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making. DESIGN:Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics. OUTCOME MEASURES:We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making. SETTING:Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant. RESULTS:After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

Project description:Although microbial communities are associated with human, environmental, plant, and animal health, there exists no cost-effective method for precisely characterizing species and genes in such communities. While deep whole-metagenome shotgun (WMS) sequencing provides high taxonomic and functional resolution, it is often prohibitively expensive for large-scale studies. The prevailing alternative, 16S rRNA gene amplicon (16S) sequencing, often does not resolve taxonomy past the genus level and provides only moderately accurate predictions of the functional profile; thus, there is currently no widely accepted approach to affordable, high-resolution, taxonomic, and functional microbiome analysis. To address this technology gap, we evaluated the information content of shallow shotgun sequencing with as low as 0.5 million sequences per sample as an alternative to 16S sequencing for large human microbiome studies. We describe a library preparation protocol enabling shallow shotgun sequencing at approximately the same per-sample cost as 16S sequencing. We analyzed multiple real and simulated biological data sets, including two novel human stool samples with ultradeep sequencing of 2.5 billion sequences per sample, and found that shallow shotgun sequencing recovers more-accurate species-level taxonomic and functional profiles of the human microbiome than 16S sequencing. We discuss the inherent limitations of shallow shotgun sequencing and note that 16S sequencing remains a valuable and important method for taxonomic profiling of novel environments. Although deep WMS sequencing remains the gold standard for high-resolution microbiome analysis, we recommend that researchers consider shallow shotgun sequencing as a useful alternative to 16S sequencing for large-scale human microbiome research studies where WMS sequencing may be cost-prohibitive. IMPORTANCE A common refrain in recent microbiome-related academic meetings is that the field needs to move away from broad taxonomic surveys using 16S sequencing and toward more powerful longitudinal studies using shotgun sequencing. However, performing deep shotgun sequencing in large longitudinal studies remains prohibitively expensive for all but the most well-funded research labs and consortia, which leads many researchers to choose 16S sequencing for large studies, followed by deep shotgun sequencing on a subset of targeted samples. Here, we show that shallow- or moderate-depth shotgun sequencing may be used by researchers to obtain species-level taxonomic and functional data at approximately the same cost as amplicon sequencing. While shallow shotgun sequencing is not intended to replace deep shotgun sequencing for strain-level characterization, we recommend that microbiome scientists consider using shallow shotgun sequencing instead of 16S sequencing for large-scale human microbiome studies.

Project description:ObjectivesCurrent US medical students have begun to rely on electronic information repositories-such as UpToDate, AccessMedicine, and Wikipedia-for their pre-clerkship medical education. However, it is unclear whether these resources are appropriate for this level of learning due to factors involving information quality, level of evidence, and the requisite knowledgebase. This study evaluated appropriateness of electronic information resources from a novel perspective: amount of mental effort learners invest in interactions with these resources and effects of the experienced mental effort on learning.MethodsEighteen first-year medical students read about three unstudied diseases in the above-mentioned resources (a total of fifty-four observations). Their eye movement characteristics (i.e., fixation duration, fixation count, visit duration, and task-evoked pupillary response) were recorded and used as psychophysiological indicators of the experienced mental effort. Post reading, students' learning was assessed with multiple-choice tests. Eye metrics and test results constituted quantitative data analyzed according to the repeated Latin square design. Students' perceptions of interacting with the information resources were also collected. Participants' feedback during semi-structured interviews constituted qualitative data and was reviewed, transcribed, and open coded for emergent themes.ResultsCompared to AccessMedicine and Wikipedia, UpToDate was associated with significantly higher values of eye metrics, suggesting learners experienced higher mental effort. No statistically significant difference between the amount of mental effort and learning outcomes was found. More so, descriptive statistical analysis of the knowledge test scores suggested similar levels of learning regardless of the information resource used.ConclusionsJudging by the learning outcomes, all three information resources were found appropriate for learning. UpToDate, however, when used alone, may be less appropriate for first-year medical students' learning as it does not fully address their information needs and is more demanding in terms of cognitive resources invested.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous research indicates that patients and their families have many questions about colonoscopy that are not fully answered by existing resources. We developed revised forms on colonoscopy bowel preparation and on the procedure itself. OBJECTIVE:As the goal of the revised materials is to have improved information relative to currently available information, we were interested in how revised information compared with what is currently available in terms of information quality and patient preference. METHODS:Participants were asked to review one at a time the Revised and Current versions of Colonoscopy bowel preparation instructions (study 1) and About Colonoscopy (study 2). The order of administration of the Revised and Current versions was randomly counterbalanced to assess order effects. Respondents rated each form along the following dimensions: amount, clarity, trustworthiness, readability and understandability, how new or familiar the information was, and reassurance. Participants were asked which form they preferred and 4 questions about why they preferred it. Open-ended questions asked participants to describe likes and dislikes of the forms and suggestions for improvement. RESULTS:The study 1 and study 2 samples were similar. Overall, in study 1, 62.4% preferred the Revised form, 28.1% preferred the Current form, and 6.7% were not sure. Overall, in study 2, 50.5% preferred the Revised form, 31.1% preferred the Current form, and 18.4% were not sure. Almost 75% of those in study 1 who received the Revised form first, preferred it, compared with less than half of those who received it first in study 2. In study 1, 75% of those without previous colonoscopy experience preferred the Revised form, compared with more than half of those who had previously undergone a colonoscopy. The study 1 logistic regression analysis demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the Revised form if they had viewed it first and had no previous experience with colonoscopy. In study 2, none of the variables assessed were associated with a preference for the Revised form. In comparing the 2 forms head-to-head, participants who preferred the Revised form in study 1 rated it as clearer compared with those who preferred the Current form. Finally, many participants who preferred the Revised form indicated in the open-ended questions that they liked it because it had more information than the Current form and that it had good visual information. CONCLUSIONS:This study is one of the first to evaluate 2 different patient education resources in a head-to-head comparison using the same participants in a within-subjects design. This approach was useful in comparing revised educational information with current resources. Moving forward, this knowledge translation approach of a head-to-head comparison of 2 different information sources could be taken to develop and refine information sources on other health issues.

Dataset Information

Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information.

Publications

Vigilant conservatism in evaluating communicated information.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets