TY - GEN
T1 - Detecting Cherry-Picked Evidence in Texts
T2 - 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS 2022
AU - Oura, Hiroki
AU - Mochizuki, Toshio
AU - Chinn, Clark
AU - Winchester, Eowyn
AU - Yamaguchi, Etsuji
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by JSPS Grants-in-Aids (#JP20H01729, #JP20K20829) and Uchida Yoko Co, LTD and by a 2019 Fulbright Award to Clark A. Chinn.
Publisher Copyright:
© ISLS.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Authors of digital documents often seek to mislead readers by presenting cherry-picked evidence-e.g., a single study supporting a claim when most studies support a different claim. We report results of two experiments to examine whether undergraduate students adjust their epistemic judgments to account for cherry-picked evidence when they read multiple texts with conflicting claims. In Study 1, students adjusted their epistemic judgments when cherry picking was explicitly indicated with warnings called out in texts. In Study 2, however, with a different topic and four conditions that manipulated different degrees to which cherry picking of evidence was explicit, students did not adjust their epistemic judgments, even when evidence was blatantly cherry picked. In addition, very few students mentioned cherry picked evidence in explaining the grounds for their judgments, even when cherry picking was explicit but without such warnings in Study 1. These suggest that most students attend little to whether evidence is cherry picked, except the condition in which authors call out warnings of cherry-picking in texts.
AB - Authors of digital documents often seek to mislead readers by presenting cherry-picked evidence-e.g., a single study supporting a claim when most studies support a different claim. We report results of two experiments to examine whether undergraduate students adjust their epistemic judgments to account for cherry-picked evidence when they read multiple texts with conflicting claims. In Study 1, students adjusted their epistemic judgments when cherry picking was explicitly indicated with warnings called out in texts. In Study 2, however, with a different topic and four conditions that manipulated different degrees to which cherry picking of evidence was explicit, students did not adjust their epistemic judgments, even when evidence was blatantly cherry picked. In addition, very few students mentioned cherry picked evidence in explaining the grounds for their judgments, even when cherry picking was explicit but without such warnings in Study 1. These suggest that most students attend little to whether evidence is cherry picked, except the condition in which authors call out warnings of cherry-picking in texts.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85145768963&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85145768963&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:85145768963
T3 - Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS
SP - 1257
EP - 1260
BT - International Collaboration toward Educational Innovation for All
A2 - Chinn, Clark
A2 - Tan, Edna
A2 - Chan, Carol
A2 - Kali, Yael
PB - International Society of the Learning Sciences (ISLS)
Y2 - 6 June 2022 through 10 June 2022
ER -