Scholarlink

<p>Scientific research is often characterized by schools of thought. We investigate whether these divisions are associated with differences in researchers’ cognitive traits such as tolerance for ambiguity. These differences may guide researchers to prefer different problems, tackle identical problems in different ways, and even reach different conclusions when studying the same problems in the same way. We surveyed 7,973 researchers in psychological sciences and investigated links between what they research, their stances on open questions in the field, and their cognitive traits and dispositions. Our results show that researchers’ stances on scientific questions are associated with what they research and with their cognitive traits. Further, these associations are detectable in their publication histories. These findings support the idea that divisions in scientific fields reflect differences in the researchers themselves, hinting that some divisions may be more difficult to bridge than suggested by a traditional view of data-driven scientific consensus.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Differences in psychologists’ cognitive traits are associated with scientific divides

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月17日

查看全文
  • Justin Sulik,
  • Nakwon Rim,
  • Elizabeth Pontikes,
  • James Evans,
  • Gary Lupyan

摘要

Scientific research is often characterized by schools of thought. We investigate whether these divisions are associated with differences in researchers’ cognitive traits such as tolerance for ambiguity. These differences may guide researchers to prefer different problems, tackle identical problems in different ways, and even reach different conclusions when studying the same problems in the same way. We surveyed 7,973 researchers in psychological sciences and investigated links between what they research, their stances on open questions in the field, and their cognitive traits and dispositions. Our results show that researchers’ stances on scientific questions are associated with what they research and with their cognitive traits. Further, these associations are detectable in their publication histories. These findings support the idea that divisions in scientific fields reflect differences in the researchers themselves, hinting that some divisions may be more difficult to bridge than suggested by a traditional view of data-driven scientific consensus.