Browsing by Author "Kerr J"
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- ItemDemocracy and belief in conspiracy theories in New Zealand(Australian Political Studies Association, 2022) Marques MD; Hill SR; Clarke EJR; Williams M; Ling M; Kerr J; Douglas K; Cichocka A; Sibley C
The COVID-19 pandemic supercharged the spread of fake news, misinformation, and conspiracy theories worldwide. Using a national probability sample of adults from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study during 2020 (17–99 years old; M = 48.59, SD = 13.86; 63% women, 37% men; N = 41,487), we examined the associations between agreement with general conspiracy beliefs and political indicators of intention to vote and satisfaction with government, alongside political factors including trust in politicians, political efficacy, identity centrality, and political ideology. Left-wing political ideology, trust in politicians, and political efficacy accounted for most of the explained variance in satisfaction with the government. General conspiracy belief was also a unique contributor to lower satisfaction with the government. We also found a curvilinear relationship between political ideology with heightened belief in conspiracies at both ideological extremes and the centre. Findings are discussed in terms of the consequences of conspiracy belief on democratic engagement.
- ItemPredicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints(Springer Nature Limited, 2024-12-20) Marcoci A; Wilkinson DP; Vercammen A; Wintle BC; Abatayo AL; Baskin E; Berkman H; Buchanan EM; Capitán S; Capitán T; Chan G; Cheng KJG; Coupé T; Dryhurst S; Duan J; Edlund JE; Errington TM; Fedor A; Fidler F; Field JG; Fox N; Fraser H; Freeman ALJ; Hanea A; Holzmeister F; Hong S; Huggins R; Huntington-Klein N; Johannesson M; Jones AM; Kapoor H; Kerr J; Kline Struhl M; Kołczyńska M; Liu Y; Loomas Z; Luis B; Méndez E; Miske O; Mody F; Nast C; Nosek BA; Simon Parsons E; Pfeiffer T; Reed WR; Roozenbeek J; Schlyfestone AR; Schneider CR; Soh A; Song Z; Tagat A; Tutor M; Tyner AH; Urbanska K; van der Linden SReplications are important for assessing the reliability of published findings. However, they are costly, and it is infeasible to replicate everything. Accurate, fast, lower-cost alternatives such as eliciting predictions could accelerate assessment for rapid policy implementation in a crisis and help guide a more efficient allocation of scarce replication resources. We elicited judgements from participants on 100 claims from preprints about an emerging area of research (COVID-19 pandemic) using an interactive structured elicitation protocol, and we conducted 29 new high-powered replications. After interacting with their peers, participant groups with lower task expertise ('beginners') updated their estimates and confidence in their judgements significantly more than groups with greater task expertise ('experienced'). For experienced individuals, the average accuracy was 0.57 (95% CI: [0.53, 0.61]) after interaction, and they correctly classified 61% of claims; beginners' average accuracy was 0.58 (95% CI: [0.54, 0.62]), correctly classifying 69% of claims. The difference in accuracy between groups was not statistically significant and their judgements on the full set of claims were correlated (r(98) = 0.48, P < 0.001). These results suggest that both beginners and more-experienced participants using a structured process have some ability to make better-than-chance predictions about the reliability of 'fast science' under conditions of high uncertainty. However, given the importance of such assessments for making evidence-based critical decisions in a crisis, more research is required to understand who the right experts in forecasting replicability are and how their judgements ought to be elicited.
- ItemWas Phar Lap killed by gangsters? New research shows which conspiracies people believe in and why(2021-04-27) Marques M; McLennan J; Kerr J; Ling M; Williams M