The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science
Abstract
This introduction to the special issue Understanding the Public Understanding of Science: Psychological Approaches discusses some of the challenges people face in understanding science. We focus on people's inevitably bounded understanding of science topics; research must address how people make decisions in science domains such as health and medicine without having the deep and extensive understanding that is characteristic of domain experts. The articles reflect two broad streams of research on the public understanding of science—the learning orientation that seeks to improve understanding through better instruction and the communications orientation that focuses on attitudes about science and trust in scientists. Challenges to understanding science include determining the relevance of information, the tentativeness of scientific truth, distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific issues, and determining what is true and what is false. Studying the public understanding of science can potentially contribute to psychological theories of thinking and reasoning in modern societies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The literature identifies several evaluation strategies that require deeper cognitive engagement, including content evaluation, source evaluation, and corroboration with other credible sources [4,5].”
From When the source is a bot: How people adapt their evaluation strategies to assess AI-generated content (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Citations
Cites
Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics
Kahneman, D. (2003) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282803322655392 · Cited by 5,377
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
SPERBER, D., CLÉMENT, F., HEINTZ, C., MASCARO, O., MERCIER, H., ORIGGI, G., & WILSON, D. (2010) · Mind & Language · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x · Cited by 1,795
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010) · Personal Epistemology in the Classroom · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511691904.006 · Cited by 146
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 58
- 10.1002/sce.20432 · DOI
- 10.1177/0963662506070159 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11051-010-9860-2 · DOI
- 10.1177/0963662506071287 · DOI
- Besley J., 2014, National Science Board (Eds.), Science and engineering indicators 2014 (pp. 7-1–7-55).
- 10.2190/EC.41.1.c · DOI
- Britt M. A., Educational Psychologist, 49
- Bromme R., 2000, Practising interdisciplinarity, 115, 10.3138/9781442678729-008 · DOI
- 10.1080/21548455.2013.849017 · DOI
- 10.1093/ijpor/edl003 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1232329 · DOI
- 10.1080/00461520.2011.587722 · DOI · Paper page
- Collins H. M., 1998, The golem: What you should know about science
- 10.1080/10410236.2013.831685 · DOI
- 10.1002/tea.20312 · DOI
- 10.1080/03057260208560187 · DOI
- 10.1002/sce.20414 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.08.002 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.x · DOI · Paper page
- Goldman S. R., 2004, Uses of intertextuality in classroom and educational research, 317
- Goldman S. R., 2010, Bringing reading research to life, 257
- Goldman S. R., Reading at a crossroads? Disjunctures and continuities in current conceptions and practices
- Goldman S. R., 2002, The psychology of science text comprehension, 19
- 10.1002/RRQ.027 · DOI
- Goldman S. R., 2013, Reading: From words to multiple texts, 180
- 10.1007/s11412-013-9182-3 · DOI
- Hillocks G., 2011, Teaching argument writing, Grades 6–12: Supporting claims with relevant evidence and clear reasoning
- 10.1017/CBO9780511563737 · DOI
- 10.2307/3132137 · DOI
- Kahneman D., 2011, Thinking, fast and slow
- Keil F. C., 2008, Brooklyn Law Review, 73, 1035
- 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01108.x · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0 · DOI
- Knorr-Cetina K., 1981, The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science
- 10.1002/sce.1011 · DOI · Paper page
- Layton D., 1993, Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education
- Maier M., Educational Psychologist, 49
- 10.1002/tea.21061 · DOI
- Next Generation Science Standards Lead States, 2013, Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states
- 10.3732/ajb.0900041 · DOI
- 10.3366/epi.2004.1.1.61 · DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.259 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1232065 · DOI
- Powells J. D., 2011, The inquisition of climate science, 10.7312/powe15718 · DOI
- 10.1080/03057260108560166 · DOI
- Sandoval W. A., Educational Psychologist, 49
- 10.1080/0163853X.2013.813835 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.004 · DOI
- 10.1002/acp.3018 · DOI
- Schwan S., Educational Psychologist, 49
- 10.7282/T3RX9945 · DOI
- 10.2307/1884852 · DOI · Paper page
- Sinatra G. M., Educational Psychologist, 49
- 10.1080/07370008.2013.771106 · DOI
- Stadtler M., 2013, Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 3448
- 10.1080/07370008.2013.769996 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1080/0163853X.2013.855535 · DOI
- Taylor R. S., 2011, Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A meta-analytic review of the relationship between epistemic cognition and academic achievement.
Greene, J. A., Cartiff, B. M., & Duke, R. F. (2018) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000263 · Cited by 150
Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data
Xiong, C., Shapiro, J., Hullman, J., & Franconeri, S. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934399 · Cited by 71
What Makes Everyday Scientific Reasoning So Challenging?
(2017) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/bs.plm.2016.11.006 · Cited by 29
Pimentel, D. R. (2025) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.21974 · Cited by 28
Dabran-Zivan, S., Klein-Avraham, I., & Baram-Tsabari, A. (2026) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0345300 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R.
- Venue
- Educational Psychologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-04-03
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 59-69
- ISSN
- 0046-1520
- 1532-6985
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
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