[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-589915-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-589915-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","smart-but-evil-student-teachers-perception-of-educational-researchers-epistemic-trustworthiness","Smart but Evil? Student-Teachers’ Perception of Educational Researchers’ Epistemic Trustworthiness","","In-service and preservice teachers are expected to integrate educational research into classroom practice, yet limited methodological knowledge often prevents firsthand evaluation of scientific claims. Two experimental studies examine epistemic trustworthiness—expertise, integrity, and benevolence—ascribed by student-teachers to text authors presenting classical research findings. The exploratory study indicates scientists are rated as “smart but evil,” with higher expertise but lower benevolence and integrity, and epistemic beliefs predict trustworthiness. A preregistered replication in Study 2 further supports the stereotype, with directions for research and practice implications.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/smart-but-evil-student-teachers-perception-of-educational-researchers-epistemic-trustworthiness/589915/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/smart-but-evil-student-teachers-perception-of-educational-researchers-epistemic-trustworthiness/589915.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Cart","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is epistemic trustworthiness in the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It is assessed through three dimensions: perceived expertise, integrity, and benevolence attributed to authors of educational research texts.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What do the results show about student-teachers’ views of scientists?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Student-teachers rate scientists as “smart but evil,” meaning they assign substantially more expertise than practitioners but less benevolence and lacking integrity.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How are epistemic beliefs related to epistemic trustworthiness?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The study finds that evaluativistic epistemic beliefs predict the level of epistemic trustworthiness student-teachers assign to educational researchers’ sources.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},589915,1792171520,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},18829141979164,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","AERA Open  \nJuly-September 2019, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 1–18 DOI: 10. 1177/2332858419868158  \nArticle reuse guidelines: [sagepub.com/journals-permissions](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)[ ](sagepub.com/journals-permissions)© The Author(s) 2019. [http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero](http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ero)  \nSmart but Evil? Student-Teachers’ Perception of Educational Researchers’ Epistemic Trustworthiness  \nSamuel Merk  \nUniversity of Tübingen  \nTom Rosman  \nLeibniz Institute for Psychology Information  \nIn-service and preservice teachers are increasingly required to integrate research results into their classroom practice. However, due to their limited methodological background knowledge, they often cannot evaluate scientific evidence firsthand and instead must trust the sources on which they rely. In two experimental studies, we investigated the amount of this so-called epistemic trustworthiness (dimensions expertise, integrity, and benevolence) that student-teachers ascribe to the authors of texts who present classical research findings (e.g., learning with worked-out examples) that allegedly were written by apractitioner, an expert, or a scientist. Results from the first exploratory study suggest that student-teachers view scientists as“smart but evil,” since they rate them as having substantially more expertise than practitioners, while also being less benevolent and lacking in integrity. Moreover, results from the exploratory study suggest that evaluativistic epistemic beliefs (beliefs about the nature of knowledge) predict epistemic trustworthiness. A preregistered conceptual replication study (Study 2) provided more evidence for the “smart but evil” stereotype. Further directions of research as well as implications for practice are discussed.  \nKeywords: epistemic trustworthiness, epistemic beliefs, student-teachers, teacher education  \nIntroduction  \nTeachers all over the world are encouraged to integrate insights from educational research into their everyday practice (Bauer & Prenzel, 2012; Slavin, 2002; Williams & Coles, 2007). However, given their limited knowledge about research methodology, they often cannot evaluate these insights firsthand and must consult secondhand evaluations by asking “Whom do I believe?” instead of “What is true?”(Bromme, Thomm, & Wolf, 2015) .  \nHence, features such as study design or sample representativeness might be less important when teachers evaluate knowledge claims, whereas criteria such as perceived author expertise or integrity (so-called epistemic trustworthiness; Hendriks, Kienhues, & Bromme, 2015) become pivotal. Research into the predictors of epistemic trustworthiness, however, is still in its infancy (for the first experimental attempts, see, e.g., Hendriks, Kienhues, & Bromme, 2016a; Thon & Jucks, 2017) . Do teachers and studentteachers see certain sources as more credible than others? Does the trustworthiness they ascribe to certain sources depend on their beliefs regarding the nature of scientific knowledge (Hofer & Bendixen, 2012; so-called epistemic beliefs; Hofer & Pintrich, 1997)? In view of this research  \ngap and considering that such predictors may provide valuable insights into how we should approach teacher education, we investigated student-teachers’ perceived epistemic trustworthiness of educational researchers and how it relates to their epistemic beliefs in an exploratory pilot study and a preregistered main study. Before we describe the two studies in detail, we will provide some background information about the constructs they entail.  \nEpistemic Trustworthiness and Epistemic Beliefs  \nEpistemic Trustworthiness  \nIn-service teachers and teacher education students are confronted with vast amounts of information about teaching that stem from a multitude of information sources. For example, they may read an expert blog that introduces a new digital classroom tool, consult their colleagues’ opinions on a certain teaching method, or skim a newspape","cbCainX1lyAPJCBe","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCainX1lyAPJCBe","pdf",1105535,18,"English","# Introduction\n## Epistemic Trustworthiness and Epistemic Beliefs\n### Epistemic Trustworthiness","[{\"question\":\"What is epistemic trustworthiness in the study?\",\"answer\":\"It is assessed through three dimensions: perceived expertise, integrity, and benevolence attributed to authors of educational research texts.\"},{\"question\":\"What do the results show about student-teachers’ views of scientists?\",\"answer\":\"Student-teachers rate scientists as “smart but evil,” meaning they assign substantially more expertise than practitioners but less benevolence and lacking integrity.\"},{\"question\":\"How are epistemic beliefs related to epistemic trustworthiness?\",\"answer\":\"The study finds that evaluativistic epistemic beliefs predict the level of epistemic trustworthiness student-teachers assign to educational researchers’ sources.\"}]","Smart but Evil? Student-Teachers’ Perception of Educational Researchers’ Epistemic Trustworthiness | PDF",1792068394,45]