Physicists with a Ph.D. are slightly more accurate judging physics statements than biology statements (d = 0.5)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Accuracy was higher for physics statements (88.4%) than biology statements (83.0%), a small 5.4% difference. → Geneviève Allaire-Duquette 2021

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 · i2 · causal · r2

Behavioral accuracy comparison between expertise domains in the statement-verification task of 25 Ph.D. physicists; the printed means were 88.4% (physics) and 83.0% (biology), and the authors note "the difference is small (5.4%)".

"physicists are more accurate in assessing physics statements than biology statements ( t(24) = 4.360, p < 0.001, d = 0.5"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• 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
• 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 — 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
• 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
• Judging incongruent statements that trigger naive ideas recruits left IFG, bilateral superior frontal gyrus and bilateral ACC more than judging matched congruent statements — related
• Adolescents show lower accuracy and longer reaction times on counterintuitive misconception trials than on matched control trials in science and maths — related