Social Psychology of Education

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 169–183 | Cite as

Epistemic authority of professors and researchers: differential perceptions by students from two cultural-educational systems

Open Access
Article

Abstract

Teachers and researchers are considered epistemic authorities that provide reliable information if that information is relevant to their discipline. Students differentiate between relevant and irrelevant disciplines when assessing teachers’ expertise. In this paper, it is investigated whether students’ cultural-educational background plays a role in this differentiation between relevant and irrelevant disciplines. In large power distance cultures such as France, students learn to respect and obey their teacher, whereas in smaller power distance cultures such as the Netherlands, the relationships between students and teachers are more informal. Therefore, French students may be less sensitive to the actual discipline when assessing a source’s expertise. In an experiment, it was empirically tested whether French students perceived smaller differences than Dutch students between fictitious professors and researchers who put forward information that was or was not related to their own discipline. Results showed that the French participants indeed differentiated to a much lesser degree between professors and researchers with a relevant and an irrelevant discipline than did the Dutch participants. Further analyses indicated that students’ obedience partially mediated this effect of nationality on the difference between relevant and irrelevant disciplines. This study underlines the role that cultural-educational background can play in the assessments of epistemic authorities.

Keywords

Culture Discipline Epistemic authority Obedience Power distance 

References

  1. Alexander R. (2000) Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  2. Altemeyer B. (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachman J. G., O’Malley P. M. (1984) Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extreme: Black-white differences in response styles. Public Opinion Quarterly 48(2): 491–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blom S. (1995) Intellectuele vorming in Nederland en Frankrijk: Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar deelname aan intellectuele vorming in het Franse en Nederlandse voortgezet onderwijs [Intellectual formation in the Netherlands and France: A comparative study of the participation in intellectual formation in Dutch and French secondary education]. Wolters-Noordhoff, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  5. Brislin R. W. (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis H. C., Berry J. W. (eds) Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp 389–444Google Scholar
  6. Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E., Kao C. F. (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 48(3): 306–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cairns, J., Lawton, D., Gardner, R. (eds) (2001) Values, culture and education. Kogan Page, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. De Bony, J. (2003). Individual autonomy and socialization at the Dutch elementary school: The relationship between the individual and the group. In W. Jochems et al. (Eds.), Grenzeloos leren: Proceedings van de 30e onderwijs research dagen 2003 (pp. 110–112). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.Google Scholar
  9. Edwards K., Smith E. E. (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71(1): 5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fiske A. P., Kitayama S., Markus H. R., Nisbett R. E. (1998) The cultural matrix of social psychology. In: Gilbert D. T., Fiske S. T., Lindzey G. (eds) The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, Boston, pp 915–981Google Scholar
  11. Frazier P. A., Tix A. P., Baron K. E. (2004) Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology 51(1): 115–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hofstede G. (1986) Cultural differences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 10(3): 301–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hofstede G. (2001) Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Hornikx J., Hoeken H. (2007) Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types and evidence quality. Communication Monographs 74(4): 443–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson T., Kulesa P., Cho Y. I., Shavitt S. (2005) The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36(2): 264–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joy S., Kolb D. A. (2009) Are there cultural differences in learning style?. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33(1): 69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruglanski A. W. (1989) Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Kruglanski A. W., Raviv A., Bar-Tal D., Raviv A., Sharvit K., Ellis S. et al (2005) Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37: 345–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kruglanski A. W., Dechesne M., Orehek E., Pierro A. (2009) Three decades of lay epistemics: The way, how, and who of knowledge formation. European Review of Social Psychology 20: 146–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee W. O. (2001) Moral perspectives on values, culture and education. In: Cairns J., Lawton D., Gardner R. (eds) Values, culture and education. Kogan Page, London, pp 27–45Google Scholar
  21. Luchok J. A., McCroskey J. C. (1978) The effect of quality of evidence on attitude change and source credibility. The Southern Speech Communication Journal 43(4): 371–383Google Scholar
  22. Maddux J. E., Rogers R. W. (1980) Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: A case of brains over beauty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39(2): 235–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neuliep J. W. (1997) A cross-cultural comparison of teacher immediacy in American and Japanese college classrooms. Communication Research 24(4): 431–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Planel C. (1997) National cultural values and their role in learning: A comparative ethnographic study of state primary schooling in England and France. Comparative Education 33(3): 349–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pornpitakpan C., Francis J. N. P. (2001) The effect of cultural differences, source expertise, and argument strength on persuasion: An experiment with Canadians and Thais. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 13(1): 77–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raviv A., Bar-Tal D., Raviv A., Abin R. (1993) Measuring epistemic authority of politicians and professors. European Journal of Personality 7(2): 119–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raviv A., Bar-Tal D., Raviv A., Biran B., Sela Z. (2003) Teachers’ epistemic authority: Perceptions of students and teachers. Social Psychology of Education 6(1): 17–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raviv A., Bar-Tal D., Raviv A., Houminer D. (1990a) Development in children’s perceptions of epistemic authorities. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 8(2): 157–169Google Scholar
  29. Raviv A., Bar-Tal D., Raviv A., Peleg D. (1990b) Perception of epistemic authorities by children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 19(5): 495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson R. M., Smith S. W. (2007) The influence of high/low context culture and power distance on choice of communication media: Students’ media choice to communicate with professors in Japan and America. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 31(4): 479–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sobel M. E. (1982) Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models”. In: Leinhardt S. (ed.) Sociological methodology. American Sociological Association, Washington, DC, pp 290–312Google Scholar
  32. Van de Vijver F. J. R., Leung K. (1997) Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Language Studies, Department of Business Communication StudiesRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations