Whether people blindly trust experts on all occasions or whether they evaluate experts’ views and question them if necessary is a vital question. This study investigates associations of human values with the readiness to question experts’ views and one’s reasons for not disagreeing with experts among randomly sampled Finns. Readiness to question experts’ views and one’s reasons for not disagreeing were inferred from self-reported written accounts. Value priorities were measured with Schwartz et al.’s Portrait Values Questionnaire and Wach and Hammer’s items concerning rational and non-rational truth. The results showed that after adjusting for the effects of age, sex and education, the values of power and rational truth were positively associated, whereas the values of security, conformity and tradition were negatively associated with readiness to question experts’ views. Furthermore, the analysis indicated that the reasons for not disagreeing with experts were related to individual factors, situational factors, social risks and views about experts.
AholaS (2015) Human values and non-adherence to doctors’ instructions across Europe. Journal of Applied Social Psychology45: 214–225.
2.
BardiASchwartzSH (2003) Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29: 1207–1220.
3.
BilskyWJanikMSchwartzSH (2011) The structural organization of human values-evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology42: 759–776.
4.
BinderARHillbackEDBrossardD (2015) Conflict or caveats? Effects of media portrayals of scientific uncertainty on audience perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis25(8):893–908.
5.
BoerDFischerR (2013) How and when do personal values guide our attitudes and sociality? Explaining cross-cultural variability in attitude-value linkages. Psychological Bulletin139: 1113–1147.
6.
BolkanSGoodboyAK (2013) No complain, no gain: Students’ organizational, relational, and personal reasons for withholding rhetorical dissent from their college instructors. Communication Education62: 278–300.
7.
BornsteinBHEmlerAC (2001) Rationality in medical decision making: A review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice7: 97–107.
8.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 24–52.
9.
CapraraGVSchwartzSCapannaCVecchioneMBarbaranelliC (2006) Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology27: 1–28.
10.
ChenHCohenPChenS (2007) Biased odds ratios from dichotomization of age. Statistics in Medicine26: 3487–3497.
11.
DavidovEMeulemanBBillietJSchmidtP (2008) Values and support for immigration: A cross-country comparison. European Sociological Review24: 583–599.
12.
de BoerJHooglandCTBoersemaJJ (2007) Towards more sustainable food choices: Value priorities and motivational orientations. Food Quality and Preference18: 985–996.
13.
ESS Round 5: European Social Survey Round 5 Data (2010) Data file edition 3.2. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data.
GoldmanAI (2001) Experts: Which ones should you trust?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research63: 85–110.
16.
GoodboyAK (2011) Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education60: 296–313.
17.
HairJFJrBlackWCBabinBJAndersonRETathamRL (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
18.
HarambamJAupersS (2015) Contesting epistemic authority: Conspiracy theories on the boundaries of science. Public Understanding of Science24: 466–480.
19.
HofstedeGH (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
20.
InfanteDARancerAS (1982) A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment46: 72–80.
21.
JonesTM (1991) Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue contingent model. Academy of Management Review16: 366–395.
22.
KajanneAPirttilä-BackmanA-M (1999) Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science8: 303–315.
23.
KassingJW (1997) Articulating, antagonizing, and displacing: A model of employee dissent. Communication Studies48: 311–332.
24.
KassingJW (2008) Consider this: A comparison of factors contributing to employees’ expressions of dissent. Communication Quarterly56: 342–355.
25.
KesoK (2002) Tietäminen sosiaalista vuorovaikutusta jäsentävänä tekijänä [Knowing in social interaction: A contextual analysis]. Unpublished Licentiate Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki.
26.
KoivulaNVerkasaloM (2006) Value structure among students and steelworkers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology36: 1263–1273.
27.
KutrovátzG (2010) Trust in experts: Contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependence. Balkan Journal of Philosophy2: 57–68.
28.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115–120.
29.
MillikenFJMorrisonEWHewlinPF (2003) An exploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies40: 1453–1476.
30.
MorrisonEW (2014) Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1: 173–197.
31.
MorselliDSpiniDDevosT (2012) Human values and trust in institutions across countries: A multilevel test of Schwartz’s hypothesis of structural equivalence. Survey Research Methods6: 49–60.
32.
NussbaumEMBendixenLD (2003) Approaching and avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary Educational Psychology28: 573–595.
33.
Official Statistics of Finland (OSF) (2010a) Educational Structure of Population, Appendix Table 1. Population Aged 15 or over by Level of Education and Gender 2010. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Available at: http://tilastokeskus.fi/til/vkour/2010/vkour_2010_2011-12-02_tau_001_en.html (accessed 28 August 2014).
34.
Official Statistics of Finland (OSF) (2010b) Population Structure. Annual Review 2010, Appendix Table 7. Religious Affiliation of the Population by Age and Sex 31.12.2010. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Available at: http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2010/01/vaerak_2010_01_2011-09-30_tau_007_en.html (accessed 28 August 2014).
35.
PassiniS (2015) Different ways of being authoritarian: The distinct effects of authoritarian dimensions on values and prejudice. Political Psychology. Epub ahead of print 27October. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12309.
36.
PeduzziPConcatoJKemperEHolfordTRFeinsteinAR (1996) A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology49: 1373–1379.
37.
Pirttilä-BackmanA-M (1993) The Social Psychology of Knowledge Reassessed: Toward a New Delineation of the Field with Empirical Substantiation (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum, 68). Helsinki: Finnish Academy of Science.
38.
Pirttilä-BackmanA-MKesoK (1998) Tiedon asema sosiaalisessa vuorovaikutuksessa [The position of knowledge in social interaction]. In: LahikainenARPirttilä-BackmanA-M (eds) Sosiaalinen vuorovaikutus [Social Interaction]. Helsinki: Otava, pp. 48–62.
39.
RoccasSSagivL (2010) Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural context into account. Social and Personality Psychology Compass4: 30–41.
40.
RohanMJ (2000) A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review4: 255–277.
41.
RokeachM (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press.
42.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRSCamererC (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23: 393–404.
43.
SagivLSverdlikNSchwarzN (2011) To compete or to cooperate? Values’ impact on perception and action in social dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology41: 64–77.
44.
SchulleryNMSchullerySE (2003) Relationship of argumentativeness to age and higher education. Western Journal of Communication67: 207–223.
45.
SchwartzSH (1992) Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: ZannaMP (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1–65.
46.
SchwartzSH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values?Journal of Social Issues50(4): 19–45.
47.
SchwartzSH (2001) European Social Survey Core Questionnaire Development – Chapter 7: A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations. London: European Social Survey, City University London.
48.
SchwartzSH (2007) Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In: JowellRRobertsCFitzgeraldREvaG (eds.) Measuring Attitudes Cross-Nationally: Lessons from the European Social Survey. London: SAGE, pp. 169–203.
49.
SchwartzSH (2012) An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
50.
SchwartzSHRubelT (2005) Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology89: 1010–1028.
51.
SchwartzSHMelechGLehmannABurgessSHarrisMOwensV (2001) Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology32: 519–542.
52.
SimondsCJ (1997) Challenge behavior in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports14: 481–492.
53.
SteinmetzHIsidorRBaeuerleN (2012) Testing the circular structure of human values: A meta-analytical structural equation modelling approach. Survey Research Methods6: 61–75.
54.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13: 55–74.
55.
SturrockKRochaJ (2000) A multidimensional scaling stress evaluation table. Field Methods12: 49–60.
56.
WachMHammerB (2003a) La structure des valeurs en France d’après le modèle de Schwartz [The structure of values in France according to the Schwartz model]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale16(4): 47–85.
57.
WachMHammerB (2003b) La structure des valeurs est-elle universelle? Genèse et validation du modèle compréhensif de Schwartz [Is the Structure of Values Universal? Genesis and Validation of the Schwartz Model]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
58.
WeberM (1919/1970) Science as a vocation. In: GerthHHMillsW (trans. and eds) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 129–156.
59.
WeinsteinBD (1993) What is an expert?Theoretical Medicine14: 57–73.
60.
WynneB (1991) Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values16: 111–121.
61.
YearleyS (2000) What does science mean in the ‘public understanding of science’. In: DierkesMvon GroteC (eds) Between Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 217–236.
