When expert predictions fail DOI Open Access
Igor Grossmann, Michael E. W. Varnum, Cendri A. Hutcherson

et al.

Published: Oct. 13, 2023

We examine the opportunities and challenges of expert judgment in social sciences, scrutinizing way scientists make predictions. While show above chance accuracy predicting lab-based phenomena, they often struggle to predict real-world societal changes. argue that most causal models used sciences are oversimplified, confuse levels analysis which a model applies, misalign nature with fail consider factors beyond scientist’s pet theory. Taking cues from physical meteorology, we advocate for an approach integrates broad foundational context-specific time series data. call shift towards more precise, daring predictions, greater intellectual humility.

Language: Английский

Beyond fear of backlash: Effects of messages about structural drivers of COVID-19 disparities among large samples of Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White Americans DOI Creative Commons
Neil A. Lewis, Norman Porticella, Jiawei Liu

et al.

Social Science & Medicine, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. 118096 - 118096

Published: April 1, 2025

Language: Английский

Citations

0

The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research DOI
Jonah Koetke, Karina Schumann, Shauna M. Bowes

et al.

Nature Human Behaviour, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown

Published: Nov. 18, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

3

When expert predictions fail DOI
Igor Grossmann, Michael E. W. Varnum, Cendri A. Hutcherson

et al.

Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 28(2), P. 113 - 123

Published: Nov. 8, 2023

Language: Английский

Citations

5

Going beyond political ideology: A computational analysis of civic trust in science DOI
Sangwon Lee, Marshall A. Taylor, Saifuddin Ahmed

et al.

Public Understanding of Science, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 33(8), P. 1046 - 1062

Published: April 24, 2024

Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the factors that predict trust/distrust in science. However, most of these are based on closed-ended survey research, which does not allow researchers gain a more nuanced understanding phenomenon. This study integrated analysis within United States with computational text reveal previously obscured by traditional methodologies. Even after controlling for political ideology—which has significant explanatory factor determining trust science framework—we found those concerns over boundary-crossing (i.e. or perceptions overlaps politics, government, and funding) were less likely than their counterparts.

Language: Английский

Citations

1

Insights into accuracy of social scientists' forecasts of societal change DOI Open Access
Igor Grossmann, Amanda Rotella, Cendri A. Hutcherson

et al.

Published: Sept. 12, 2022

How well can social scientists predict societal change, and what processes underlie their predictions? To answer these questions, we ran two forecasting tournaments testing accuracy of predictions change in domains commonly studied the sciences: ideological preferences, political polarization, life satisfaction, sentiment on media, gender-career racial bias. Following provision historical trend data domain, submitted pre-registered monthly forecasts for a year (Tournament 1; N=86 teams/359 forecasts), with an opportunity to update based new six months later 2; N=120 teams/546 forecasts). Benchmarking revealed that scientists’ were average no more accurate than simple statistical models (historical means, random walk, or linear regressions) aggregate sample from general public (N=802). However, if they had scientific expertise prediction interdisciplinary, used simpler models, prior data.

Language: Английский

Citations

4

Reflecting on Past Theoretical Contributions in Psychological Science: A New Initiative DOI
Igor Grossmann

Psychological Inquiry, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 35(1), P. 1 - 2

Published: Jan. 2, 2024

Language: Английский

Citations

0

The time trap: Distinguishing between-person traits from within-person change in wisdom and well-being after adversity DOI Open Access
Jackson A. Smith,

Anna Dorfman,

Neil Wegenschimmel

et al.

Published: March 8, 2023

This study tests three common assumptions in research on complex thought and wisdom: cause of indicators, cross-situational consistency, between-within isomorphism. Using a year-long, multi-wave 499 North Americans’ event-contingent reflections autobiographical adversity, we examined intellectual humility, open-mindedness, perspective taking, search for compromise/conflict resolution. Network models outperformed factor models, questioning the assumption. Wisdom-related features showed lower stability than personality traits subjective well-being, challenging consistency. Between-person within-person associations differed, violating isomorphism Longitudinal analyses further revealed that change self-distancing perceived level distress, but not other proposed moderators, were associated with growth several wisdom months later. These results call revision approaches to studying highlighting importance longitudinal more precise temporal claims psychological science.

Language: Английский

Citations

0

When expert predictions fail DOI Open Access
Igor Grossmann, Michael E. W. Varnum, Cendri A. Hutcherson

et al.

Published: Oct. 13, 2023

We examine the opportunities and challenges of expert judgment in social sciences, scrutinizing way scientists make predictions. While show above chance accuracy predicting lab-based phenomena, they often struggle to predict real-world societal changes. argue that most causal models used sciences are oversimplified, confuse levels analysis which a model applies, misalign nature with fail consider factors beyond scientist’s pet theory. Taking cues from physical meteorology, we advocate for an approach integrates broad foundational context-specific time series data. call shift towards more precise, daring predictions, greater intellectual humility.

Language: Английский

Citations

0