Cited by 29Science Education and PedagogyEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

What Makes Everyday Scientific Reasoning So Challenging?

Priti Shah, Audrey L. Michal, Amira F.A. Ibrahim, Rebecca E. Rhodes, Fernando Rodriguez·2017·Psychology of Learning and Motivation

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.006

Cites

180 of 180 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shah, P., Michal, A. L., Ibrahim, A. F. A., Rhodes, R. E., & Rodriguez, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Priti Shah
Venue
Psychology of Learning and Motivation
Publisher
Elsevier
Published
2017
Pages
251-299
ISSN
0079-7421 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2575767199
Cited by
29
References
180
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
FWCI
16.17
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
public understanding of science, science communication, evidence-based decision making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review