Scientists with a Ph.D. in physics respond more slowly to incongruent statements than to matched congruent statements, with a response-time increase in physics twice as large as in biology¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1–r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Response times were longer for incongruent than congruent statements in physics (d = 2.1) and biology (d = 0.9). → Geneviève Allaire-Duquette 2021 q3 i? The response-time increase between congruent and incongruent statements was twice as large in physics (+639 ms or 18%) as in biology (+273 ms or 9%). → Geneviève Allaire-Duquette 2021 (2)

Evidence¶

Geneviève Allaire-Duquette 2021¶

Geneviève Allaire-Duquette, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Patrice Potvin, Martin Riopel, Marilyne Larose, Steve Masson. (2021). An fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science. npj Science of Learning 6:11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00091-x

q3 · i3 · causal · r2

Response times in the same fMRI statement-verification experiment with 25 Ph.D. physicists. Physics means were "x̄congruent 3542 ± 754 ms; x̄incongruent = 4181 ± 811 ms"; in biology the congruency effect on response time was also significant (d = 0.9).

"Verifying the scienti fic value of the congruent statements relative to incongruent ones was also faster in both areas of expertise (Fig. 1c). (Physics: t(24) = 10.988, p < 0.001, d = 2.1, CI 95% [ −759.1, −519.0]; x̄congruent 3542 ± 754 ms; x̄incongruent = 4181 ± 811 ms."

Geneviève Allaire-Duquette 2021 (2)¶

Geneviève Allaire-Duquette, Lorie-Marlène Brault Foisy, Patrice Potvin, Martin Riopel, Marilyne Larose, Steve Masson. (2021). An fMRI study of scientists with a Ph.D. in physics confronted with naive ideas in science. npj Science of Learning 6:11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00091-x

q3 · i? · causal · r1

Descriptive comparison of congruency-driven response-time increases across the two expertise domains in the same 25-participant study, as printed in the behavioral results; no inferential test of the domain difference is reported.

"In physics, response time increased twice as much as in biology between congruent and incongruent statements ( Δphysics =+ 639 ms or 18%; Δbiology = +273 ms or 9%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• An EXPERTISE × CONGRUENCY interaction in bilateral dorsal ACC shows the congruency effect on BOLD signal is larger for statements in biology, where participants hold basic expertise, than in physics — related
• Naive science ideas are extremely persistent and probably never disappear even after extensive training such as a Ph.D. in physics, so conceptual change as replacement may never truly be achieved — related
• Scientists with a Ph.D. in physics are less accurate when judging the scientific value of incongruent statements that trigger naive ideas than matched congruent statements, in both physics and biology — related
• Incongruent items in school-topic tasks are generally associated with longer response times and lower accuracy, patterns consistent with inhibitory control recruitment — a broader claim this one bears on
• Adolescents show lower accuracy and longer reaction times on counterintuitive misconception trials than on matched control trials in science and maths — a broader claim this one bears on
• Physicists with a Ph.D. are slightly more accurate judging physics statements than biology statements (d = 0.5) — related
• When physicists with a Ph.D. confront naive ideas in their domain of expertise, MFG and IFG associated with inhibitory control are significantly more activated by incongruent than congruent statements — related
• When physicists with a Ph.D. judge incongruent statements in biology, where they hold basic expertise, activation overlaps with inhibitory-control regions including left IFG, ACC, insula and superior frontal gyrus — related