TEACHERS' PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN ERA OF MISINFORMATION: EXPLORING THE FORER EFFECT TO PROMOTE SCIENTIFIC LITERACY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31692/2595-2498.v9i1.330Keywords:
Barnum Effect, Nature of Science, Demarcation problem, PseudoscienceAbstract
The rapid and massive dissemination of incorrect and misleading data undermines decision-making in various contexts. Pseudosciences, including pseudotherapies, reach people as part of this disinformation process. The fact that pseudosciences exploit cognitive biases or reasoning flaws is one of the reasons people are deceived. Belief in astrology, lucky numbers or items, tarot, palm reading, dowsing rods, UFOs, conspiracy theories, and fake news, for example, stems from a low public understanding of the types of reasoning used in the sciences and the social system of checks and balances that makes scientific knowledge reliable. To overcome this problem, there is a consensus that science education courses at the primary, secondary, and higher education levels should promote scientific literacy by drawing on the history, philosophy, and sociology of science to teach about aspects of the Nature of Science (NOS). Debiasing educational programs also contribute to scientific literacy. In this article, we report on the use of an activity that explores the Forer effect to teach about cognitive biases, the demarcation problem, and aspects of NOS. The main finding of this paper is that pre-service teachers demonstrate a willingness to reject misleading or false claims, but they fail when these claims are not presented under the label of a known pseudoscience. We point to a deficiency in metacognition and in the understanding of the organized skepticism of the sciences, which needs to be developed in primary, secondary, and higher education to form citizens capable of discerning reliable from misleading information.
Downloads
References
ABD-EL-KHALICK, F. Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, v. 34, n. 3, p. 353-374, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
ALLCHIN, D. From Science Studies to Scientific Literacy: A View from the Classroom. Science & Education, v. 23, p. 1911-1932, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9672-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9672-8
ALLCHIN, D.; BERGSTROM, C. T.; OSBORNE, J. Transforming Science Education in an Age of Misinformation. Journal of College Science Teaching, v. 53, n. 1, p. 40-43, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2023.2292409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2023.2292409
ALLUM, N. What makes some people think astrology is scientific? Science communication, v. 33, n. 3, p. 341-366, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010389819
BARBERIA, I. et al. A short educational intervention diminishes causal illusions and specific paranormal beliefs in undergraduates. PLoS One, 13, n. 1, e0191907, 2018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191907. PMID: 29385184; PMCID: PMC5792014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191907
BOUDRY, M.; BLANCKE, S.; PIGLIUCCI, M. What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology, v. 28, n. 8, p. 1177-1198, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.971946. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.971946
BRONSTEIN, M. V. et al. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. Journal of applied research in memory and cognition, v. 8, n. 1, p. 108-117, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.09.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101832
BLOOM, P.; WEISBERG, D. S. Childhood origins of adult resistance to science. Science, v. 316, p. 996-997, 2007. doi: 10.1126/science.1133398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133398
BUNCHAFT, G.; KRÜGER, H. Credulidade e efeito Barnum ou Forer. Temas em Psicologia, v. 18, n. 2, p. 469-479, 2010.
CGEE. Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos. Percepção pública da C&T no Brasil – 2019. Brasília: Centro de Gestão e Estudos Estratégicos, 2019.
CROSKERRY, P.; SINGHAL, G.; MAMEDE, S. Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change. BMJ quality & safety, v. 22, n. Suppl 2, p. ii65-ii72, 2013. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713
DELGADO-LÓPEZ, P. D.; CORRALES-GARCÍA, E. M. Influence of Internet and social media in the promotion of alternative oncology, cancer quackery, and the predatory publishing phenomenon. Cureus, v. 10, n. 5, e2617, 2018. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2617 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2617
DICKSON, D. H.; KELLY, I. W. The “Barnum effect” in personality assessment: A review of the literature. Psychological Reports, v. 57, p. 367-382, 1985. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.2.367
DIETRICH, D. R.; DEKANT, W.; GREIM, H.; HESLOP-HARRISON, P.; BERRY, C.; BOOBIS, A.; HENGSTLER, J.; SHARPE, R. Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science experts and in science as a whole: The bigger picture. Chemico-Biological Interactions, v. 257, p. 1-3, 2016. 10.1016/j.cbi.2016.07.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2016.07.023
EYSENBACH, G. Infodemiology: The epidemiology of (mis) information. The American journal of medicine, v. 113, n. 9, p. 763-765, 2002. 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01473-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9343(02)01473-0
EL-HANI, C. N. Notas sobre o ensino de Historia e Filosofia da Biologia na Educação Superior. In: NARDI, R. (org.). A pesquisa em ensino de ciências no Brasil: alguns recortes. São Paulo: Escrituras, 2007, p. 293-315.
FACIONE, P. A. Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight Assessment, v. 1, n. 1, p. 1-23, 2011.
FASCE, A.; PICÓ, A. Science as a Vaccine. Science & Education, v. 28, p. 109-125, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0
FLORES, K. et al. Deficient critical thinking skills among college graduates: Implications for leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, v. 44, n. 2, p. 212-230, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00672.x
FORER, B. R. The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, v. 44, n. 1, p. 118, 1949. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059240
FUERTES-PRIETO, M. Á. et al. Pre-service teachers’ false beliefs in superstitions and pseudosciences in relation to science and technology. Science & Education, v. 29, n. 5, p. 1235-1254, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00140-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00140-8
FURNHAM, A.; SCHOFIELD, S. Accepting personality test feedback: A review of the Barnum effect. Current Psychology, v. 6, n. 2, p. 162-178, 1987. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686623
GALLUP. Wellcome Global Monitor - How does the world feel about science and health? Gallup, 2018. Disponível em: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-global-monitor-2018.pdf. Acesso em: 30 jul. 2025.
GELFERT, A. Fake news: a definition. Informal logic, v. 38, n. 1, p. 84-117, 2018. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i1.5068
GLICK, P.; GOTTESMAN, D.; JOLTON, J. The fault is not in the stars: Susceptibility of skeptics and believers in astrology to the Barnum effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, n. 4, p. 572-583, 1989. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154010
HOLTON, G. How to Think about the ‘Anti-Science’ Phenomenon. Public Understanding of Science, v. 1, n. 1, p. 103, 1992. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/012
KAHNEMAN, D. Rápido e devagar: duas formas de pensar. Objetiva, 2012.
KARAMAN, A. Teachers' Conceptions About Science and Pseudoscience: distinguishing Astronomy from Astrology. Science & Education, v. 32, n. 2, p. 499-528, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00312-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00312-0
KLAYMAN, J. Varieties of Confirmation Bias. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, v. 32, p. 385-418, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60315-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60315-1
KRUEGER, J. I.; VOGRINCIC-HASELBACHER, C.; EVANS, A. M. We need a credible theory of gullibility. In: FORGAS, J. P.; BAUMEISTER, R. F. (ed.), Homo Credulus: The social psychology of gullibility [The 20th Sydney Symposium on Social Psychology]. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203787-6
LAYNE, C. The Barnum effect: Rationality versus gullibility? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, v. 47, n. 1, p. 219–221, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.47.1.219. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.47.1.219
LEDEN, L.; HANSSON, L.; REDFORS, A. et al. Teachers’ Ways of Talking About Nature of Science and Its Teaching. Science & Education, v. 24, p. 1141-1172, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9782-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9782-6
LEDERMAN, N. G. et al. Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of research in science teaching, v. 39, n. 6, p. 497-521, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
LEDERMAN, N. G. Nature of science: Past, present and future. In: ABELL, S. K.; Lederman, N. G. (ed.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
LOBATO, E. J. C. et al. Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v. 28, n. 5, p. 617-625, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3042
LOSH, S. C. et al. What does education really do? Educational dimensions and pseudoscience support in the American general public, 1979-2001. The Skeptical Inquirer, v. 27, n. 5, p. 30-35, 2003.
MAJIMA, Y. Belief in Pseudoscience, Cognitive Style and Science Literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, v. 29, n. 4, p. 552-559, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3136
MARTIN, M. Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science & Education, v. 3, n. 4, p. 357-371, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488452
McCOMAS, W. F.; CLOUGH, M. P.; ALMAZROA, H. The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In: McComas, W. F. (ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Dordrecht: Springer, 2002. p. 3-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47215-5_1
METIN, D.; ERTEPINAR, H. Inferring Pre-Service Science Teachers' Understanding of Science by Using Socially Embedded Pseudoscientific Context. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, v. 4, n. 4, p. 340-358, 2016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18404/ijemst.93129
MOORE, D. W. Three in four Americans believe in paranormal. Gallup News Service, v. 161, 2005.
NIEMINEN, P.; MUSTONEN, A-M. Argumentation and Fallacies in Creationist Writings against Evolutionary Theory. Evolution: Education and Outreach, v. 7, n, 1, p. 11., 2014. doi:10.1186/s12052-014-0011-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-014-0011-6
ÖNAL, N. T.; KIRMIZIGÜL, A. S. Investigation of the Preservice Teachers' Science-Pseudoscience Distinction and Epistemological Beliefs. Journal of Pedagogical Research, v. 5, n. 3, p. 55-67, 2021. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021370582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021370582
PENNYCOOK, G. et al. On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, v. 10, n. 6, p. 549-563, 2015. doi:10.1017/S1930297500006999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006999
PENNYCOOK, G.; RAND, D. G. The psychology of fake news. Trends in cognitive sciences, v. 25, n. 5, p. 388-402, 2021. 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007
PETERS, U. What Is the Function of Confirmation Bias? Erkenn, v. 87, p. 1351-1376, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1
ROSEN, Gerald M. Barnum effect. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology, p. 1-3, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp482
SCHWAB, J. J. The structure of the natural sciences. In: FORD, G. W.; PUGNO, L. (ed.). The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1964.
SHERMER, M. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0902-35
STASIELOWICZ, L. Who believes in conspiracy theories? A meta-analysis on personality correlates. Journal of Research in Personality, v. 98, p. 104229, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2022.104229
SWAMI, V. et al. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, v. 133, n. 3, p. 572-585, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006
THAGARD, P. R. Why astrology is a pseudoscience. In: PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Cambridge University Press, 1978. p. 223-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/psaprocbienmeetp.1978.1.192639
TURGUT, H. The context of demarcation in nature of science teaching: the case of astrology. Science & Education, v. 20, n. 5, p. 491-515, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9250-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9250-2
UÇAR, M. B.; SAHIN, E. Pre-Service Science Teachers' Discrimination Level of Science and Pseudoscience. Science Education International, v. 29, n. 4, p. 267-273, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v29.i4.9
van der LINDEN, S. Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nature Medicine, v. 28, n. 3, p. 460-467, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01713-6
WYMAN, A. J.; VYSE, S. Science versus the stars: A double-blind test of the validity of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory and computer-generated astrological natal charts. Journal of General Psychology, v. 135, p. 287-300, 2008. doi: 10.3200/GENP.135.3.287-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.135.3.287-300
ZABOSKI, B. A.; THERRIAULT, D. J. Faking science: Scientificness, credibility, and belief in pseudoscience. Educational Psychology, v. 40, n. 7, p. 820-837, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2019.1694646
Downloads
Published
Conference Proceedings Volume
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Maria Eduarda Carvalho da Silva, Emerson de Andrade Moura, Dr. Ricardo Santos do Carmo (Autor)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
