December 2024
·
37 Reads
What is this page?
This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.
Publications (265)
December 2024
December 2024
·
6 Reads
Within the research community, the question “what makes research findings trustworthy?” will elicit different answers depending on the emphasis on research integrity and ethics, research methods, transparency, inclusion, assessment and peer review, or scholarly communication. Each provides partial insight. We introduce a systems framework for conceptualizing trustworthiness of research findings to assess whether the research is accountable, evaluable, well-formulated, has been evaluated, controls for bias, reduces error, and well-calibrated with the claims matching the evidence. Each of these components has potential indicators of trustworthiness representing the research itself, the researchers conducting and evaluating the research, and the organizations supporting the research. The framework attempts to be applicable across methods, approaches, and epistemologies, but translation of principles into concrete, generalizable indicators is challenging. Developing valid, scalable indicators will improve research assessment, counter faulty trustworthiness heuristics, reduce misinformation, and ultimately foster earned trust in research.
October 2024
·
11 Reads
·
1 Citation
Public Opinion Quarterly
Has the “big lie”—the false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump—shaped citizens’ views of the legitimacy of other US elections? We argue that it has. Those who believe Trump’s claim, whom we call election skeptics, lack confidence in elections for two interrelated reasons. First, because they think 2020 was inaccurately and unfairly conducted, they think that other elections will suffer a similar fate, and hence think these elections are illegitimate even before any votes are cast. Second, while most voters think elections are less legitimate when their preferred candidate loses, this effect will be especially large for election skeptics, because voter fraud gives them a mechanism to explain their candidate’s loss. Using an original panel dataset spanning the 2020 and 2022 elections, we show strong support for these hypotheses. This has important implications for our elections, and their legitimacy, moving forward.
June 2024
·
2 Reads
Journal of Health Communication
May 2024
·
30 Reads
·
2 Citations
Journal of Health Communication
May 2024
·
78 Reads
·
23 Citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
May 2024
·
25 Reads
Journal of Health Communication
March 2024
·
21 Reads
·
5 Citations
Science Advances
Have perceptions of the U.S. Supreme Court polarized, much like the rest of American politics? Because of the Court’s unique role, for many years, it remained one of the few institutions respected by both Democrats and Republicans alike. But the Court’s dramatic shift to the right in recent years—highlighted by its Dobbs decision in 2022—potentially upends that logic. Using both eight waves of panel data and 18 nationally representative surveys spanning two decades, we show that while there was little evidence of partisan polarization in earlier years, in 2022 and 2023, such patterns are clear in favorability, trust, legitimacy, and support for reform. Factors that used to protect the Court—like knowledge about it and support for key democratic values—no longer do so. The Court has also become more important to voters, and will likely remain a political flashpoint, with disquieting implications for the Court’s place in our polity.
March 2024
·
20 Reads
·
13 Citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
In recent years, many questions have been raised about whether public confidence in science is changing. To clarify recent trends in the public’s confidence and factors that are associated with these feelings, an effort initiated by the National Academies’ Strategic Council for Research Excellence, Integrity, and Trust (the Strategic Council) analyzed findings from multiple survey research organizations. The Strategic Council’s effort, which began in 2022, found that U.S. public confidence in science, the scientific community, and leaders of scientific communities is high relative to other civic, cultural, and governmental institutions for which researchers regularly collect such data. However, confidence in these institutions has fallen during the previous 5 years. Science’s decline, while real, is similar to or less than that in the other groups. A recent study goes into greater detail by exploring public views of science. From these data, we observe that many of the surveyed U.S. public question the extent to which scientists share their values or overcome personal biases when presenting conclusions. At the same time, large majorities agree on certain types of actions that they want scientists to take. For example, 84% respond that it is “somewhat important” or “very important” for scientists to disclose their funders. Ninety-two percent (92%) offer the same responses to scientists “being open to changing their minds based on new evidence.” Collectively, these data clarify how the U.S. public views science and scientists. They also suggest actions that can affect public confidence in science and scientists in the years to come.
Citations (66)
... On average over all three waves, 47 percent of Trump voters are not at all confident and 32 percent, not too confident. The reliability coefficient for responses to this question is 0.93, with between-wave stability estimates of between 0.90 and 0.95 (Levendusky et al., 2023). A study using rolling cross sections between October 27, 2022 and January 29, 2023 (N = 20,000) also reported no temporal decline in belief in the big lie (Arseneaux & Truex, 2023 This is not to say these beliefs are held with great or enduring confidence, however. ...
- Citing Article
October 2024
Public Opinion Quarterly
... This ambiguity challenges existing frameworks of intellectual property and academic recognition, necessitating new guidelines and ethical standards. This is often formulated in terms of a defense of integrity, authenticity and the privileging of human rationality (Blau et al 2024;Bagenal 2024). These arguments are generally framed in terms of ethics. ...
- Citing Article
- Full-text available
May 2024
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
... In the United States, there has been a prevailing belief that broad support for the Supreme Court surpasses specific support for executive decisions. However, this pattern may have become more complicated due to the increasing polarization and legitimacy crisis in recent years (Levendusky et al., 2024). In China, the courts are widely considered de facto part of the government (Ng & He, 2017). ...
- Citing Article
March 2024
Science Advances
... Recent research has found a decline in trust in scientific principles, scientists, and scientific institutions among U.S. adults over the past five years [Lupia et al., 2024]. People are increasingly skeptical about scientists' ability to control their personal biases and those of their funding sources [Lupia et al., 2024]. ...
- Citing Article
March 2024
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
... of misinformation about vaccination because people form misconceptions about what the data imply, in part due to an inability to understand what the numbers mean ( Jamieson et al. 2024). For example, evidence that "of 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS from 1990 through 2019, 58% clustered within 3 days postvaccination and 78.3% occurred within 7 days postvaccination" should not be interpreted as clear evidence of a causal link between infant vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome (Miller 2021(Miller , p. 1324. ...
- Citing Article
February 2024
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association
... 2020]. Recent social science research across many countries shows that individuals generally trust science and scientific experts, but this can vary by demographic characteristics such as gender and education, with women and those with lower educational attainment often expressing lower levels of trust [Krause et al., 2019;Obreja et al., 2023;Ophir et al., 2023;Funk et al., 2020;Rutjens et al., 2018]. Moreover, events that are linked to science can also influence and shift science views, with the COVID-19 pandemic being the most notable recent example [Algan et al., 2021;Kreps & Kriner, 2020;Safford et al., 2021b]. ...
- Citing Article
- Full-text available
September 2023
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
... However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, prominent members of the African American community encouraged the acceptance of vaccination, and this had a positive effect on the vaccination rates amongst members of that community. In a study examining this phenomenon, Romer and Jamieson report that "changes in misinformation beliefs among Black respondents over the course of the vaccine rollout were predictive of changes in vaccination for this population", and this can be attributed to "pro-vaccination efforts by credible sources such as the Black clergy who encouraged their worshippers to overcome their conspiratorial thinking about the health system and accept the vaccine" (62). ...
- Citing Article
- Full-text available
June 2023
... Moreover, political identities are increasingly intertwined with the choice of news and social media platforms, with liberals consuming a more diverse and balanced media diet, whereas conservatives relying heavily on a few sources they trust, despite studies showing them to be biased and prone to misinformation (Benkler et al., 2018;Kor-Sins, 2023). Following decades of concerted efforts to undermine the mainstream media and other official sources of knowledge, conservatives and Republicans are now highly suspicious of mainstream media (Bedingfield, 2018;Jamieson and Cappella, 2018), and are more likely to isolate themselves in echo chambers (Levendusky et al., 2023). ...
- Citing Book
January 2023
... As journals that routinely disseminate results of survey research, PNAS and Science have a strong interest in protecting and preserving its integrity. In 2023, against a background of rising concerns about the reliability and trustworthiness of survey research associated with changing technologies, very low response rates, eroding trust in governments, media, and science in general, and conspicuously poorly performing national election polls, Jamieson et al. (3) published an essay laying out recommendations for "ways that survey researchers, and those who use polls and other public-oriented surveys, can increase the accuracy and trustworthiness of their data and analyses." Of the 12 recommendations, five are directly relevant to publishers of journals whose purview includes studies based on survey research and the standards set for authors of such studies. ...
Reference:
Publishing survey research
- Citing Article
- Full-text available
March 2023
PNAS Nexus
... Philosophy Compass, 16(11), e12788. 5 ...
- Citing Article
April 2020
