Assisting Strategies of the Parents of Students with Special Educational Needs in the Emergency Remote Learning in Poland.

The study had four objectives: (a) identifying and characterizing strategies for involving parents of students with SEN (students with special educational needs) in remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) comparing these strategies with those used by parents of students without SEN (non-SEN students); (c) identifying predictors of parental involvement in the remote education of students with SEN; (d) checking whether the identified strategies differentiate the perceived barriers and benefits of remote learning. In total, 421 parents of primary school students participated in the study, 83 of whom (20%) were parents of children with SEN (SEN group). Based on the factor analysis of the results (respondents completed a 66-item electronic questionnaire), three main strategies for parental involvement in children's remote education were identified: (1) committed teacher (CT), with 40% in the SEN group and 55% in the non-SEN group; (2) autonomy-supporting coach (ASC), with 22% in the SEN group and 26% in the non-SEN group; (3) committed teacher and reliever (CTR), with 38% in the SEN group and 19% in the non-SEN group. The strongest predictor of parental involvement with SEN students in the role of committed teacher was excessive demands from school. Parents whose children showed low motivation to learn were the most likely to do some of their children's school tasks for them and apply the committed teacher and reliever strategy. The positive aspects of remote education were mostly noticed by moderately committed parents who gave their children a lot of autonomy (autonomy-supporting coaches). The obtained results can be included in the optimization of schools' activities in terms of organizing remote education for students with SEN and cooperating with parents.

Parental involvement in remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic-Dominant approaches and their diverse implications.

The aim of the study on which this article reports was to identify parents' approaches to their children's remote education during the COVID-19 pandemic in April and May 2020. Additionally, this investigation sought to determine the role of parent perceptions of the barriers and benefits of remote education. The research draws on a survey of 421 parents of primary school students, in which a 66-item questionnaire (4 subscales) was used. Analysis revealed three main clusters that represent approaches adopted by parents: (1) the committed teacher approach, (2) the autonomy-supporting coach, and (3) the committed teacher and intervener. The parents in cluster 3 emphasised perceived barriers to remote learning more than parents in clusters 1 and 2. Regarding perceptions of the benefits, statistically significant differences were found in perceptions of child development facilitated by remote education (the parents in cluster 2 rated it most positively). The results can be used to support parents and schools in the provision of optimal remote learning.

What Makes You Think That You Are a Health Expert? The Effect of Objective Knowledge and Cognitive Structuring on Self-Epistemic Authority.

Self-epistemic authority (SEA) refers to the subjective judgement of the level of expertise and knowledge a person has in a given domain. While it is reasonable to assume that people's perception of SEA reflects their level of objective knowledge in the given domain, there is evidence to show that people are not optimal judges of their own knowledge. Thus, the present study examined the interaction between the participants' trait-like characteristics of need for cognitive closure (NFC) and efficacy to fulfill the need for cognitive closure (EFNC), which affects the use of cognitive structuring, as a source of SEA. Results of the study confirm that objective knowledge as well as a cognitive-motivational epistemic process (interaction between NFC and EFNC) affect SEA. For high EFNC individuals, the effect of NFC on SEA was positive. However, for low EFNC individuals, the relationship was negative.

Lay Evaluation of Financial Experts: The Action Advice Effect and Confirmation Bias.

The goal of this experimental project was to investigate lay peoples' perceptions of epistemic authority (EA) in the field of finance. EA is defined as the extent to which a source of information is treated as evidence for judgments independently of its objective expertise and based on subjective beliefs. Previous research suggested that EA evaluations are biased and that lay people tend to ascribe higher EA to experts who advise action (in the case of medical experts) or confirm clients' expectations (in the case of politicians). However, there has been no research into biases in lay evaluations of financial experts and this project is aimed to fill this gap. Experiment 1 showed that lay people tended to ascribe greater authority to financial consultants who gave more active advice to clients considering taking out a mortgage. Experiment 2 confirmed the action advice effect found in Experiment 1. However, the outcomes of Experiments 2 and - particularly - 3 suggested that this bias might also be due to clients' desire to confirm their own opinions. Experiment 2 showed that the action advice effect was moderated by clients' own opinions on taking loans. Lay people ascribed the greatest EA to the advisor in the scenario in which he advised taking action and where this coincided with the client's positive opinion on the advisability of taking out a loan. In Experiment 3 only participants with a positive opinion on the financial product ascribed greater authority to experts who recommended it; participants whose opinion was negative tended to rate consultants who advised rejecting the product more highly. To conclude, these three experiments revealed that lay people ascribe higher EA to financial consultants who advise action rather than maintenance of the status quo, but this effect is limited by confirmation bias: when the client's a priori opinion is salient, greater authority is ascribed to experts whose advice confirms it. In this sense, results presented in the present paper suggest that the action advice effect might be also interpreted as a specific manifestation of confirmation bias.

The Effect of Physicians' Treatment Recommendations on Their Epistemic Authority: The Medical Expertise Bias.

This study examines the hypothesis that patients perceive physicians who recommend more active and major treatment as having greater epistemic authority. The hypothesis is based on the assumption that patients expect that their physicians should advocate for an active treatment rather than abstention from treatment. The sample included 631 participants. Data were collected using a between-subjects design and scenarios that described a person who suffers from a medical problem and visits a physician (surgeon, orthopedist, or dentist). The physician gives a passive or active recommendation regarding treatment. Different levels of passive recommendation (against or wait on treatment) and active recommendation (minor, moderate, or major procedures) were used. The experience of the physician was also manipulated. The dependent measure was the patient's rating of the physician's epistemic authority. Physicians who prescribed an active mode of treatment were perceived as having a higher epistemic authority than physicians who gave a passive recommendation. We named this phenomenon the medical expertise bias, as people might be biased when judging the level of expertise of their physicians such that those physicians who recommend an active treatment are considered to have greater medical epistemic authority in general.

Patients' perceptions of physicians' epistemic authority when recommending flu inoculation.

OBJECTIVE: Patient perception of physician expertise has important implications for adherence to treatment. This study investigates factors that may influence a patient's perception of a physician's knowledge and expertise (i.e., epistemic authority; EA). These factors are agreement with the physician regarding inoculation against the flu, physician gender, and treatment setting (private vs. public). METHOD: The sample consisted of 187 participants (111 women and 76 men). Data were collected using four scenarios, each illustrating a visit to a physician (female or male, working in private or public practice) who recommended (for or against) the flu inoculation. The physician's recommendation was manipulated in a between-subjects design. The study participants' preference regarding flu inoculation was measured before they were shown the scenarios. The dependent measure was a six-item rating of the EA attributed to the physician described in the scenario. RESULTS: Physicians who recommended inoculation were perceived as having significantly higher EA than those who recommended against it. In addition, correspondence between the participant's preference and the physician's recommendation affected the physician's EA only in the condition where the physician recommended performing the inoculation. Finally, only when participants had a positive attitude toward inoculation did they view physicians in public clinics as having lower EA than those working in private clinics. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that patients' evaluations of their physicians' EA are influenced by their implicit and explicit beliefs about the physician's role. One of these expectations is that expert physicians should prescribe active treatment rather than abstention from it.