An argument's named authoritative author increased mathematicians' persuasiveness ratings, but the authority effect vanished for deductive proofs¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Mathematicians randomly assigned to see an argument attributed to Littlewood rated it more than 17 points more persuasive than the anonymous group, a statistically significant replicated difference. → Keith Weber 2013

Evidence¶

Keith Weber 2013¶

Keith Weber, Matthew Inglis & Juan Pablo Mejia-Ramos. (2013). How mathematicians obtain conviction: Implications for mathematics instruction and research on epistemic cognition. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.865527

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Experiment by Inglis and Mejia-Ramos with 190 research-active mathematicians rating one argument's persuasiveness on a 0-100 scale, randomly assigned to anonymous or named (Littlewood) conditions. The named group's rating was "more than 17 points higher"; no effect size is printed.

"The named group's rating of the persuasiveness of the argument was more than 17 points higher than that of the anonymous group, a statistically significant difference (which was replicated in a subsequent study)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most interviewed mathematicians said the author of a deductive argument influences how they read it, and surveyed referees were split on trusting authoritative sources — related
• Knowing an argument was written by an expert mathematician increases reported persuasion for a heuristic argument among both students and researchers — related
• Authority figures do not increase persuasion for formal proofs, regardless of proof complexity or author eminence — related
• Authority effects on heuristic and visual arguments persist when instructions push participants toward evaluating conviction, ruling out an instruction-interpretation artifact — related
• A majority of surveyed mathematicians report believing proofs are correct because of journal publication, journal quality, or a trusted authoritative source — related