Dieckmann, Nathan, FJohnson, Branden B.Gregory, RobinMayorga, MarcusHan, Paul, KJSlovic, Paul2015-11-042015-11-042015-11-04http://pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/09/04/0963662515603271.abstract?rss=1https://hdl.handle.net/1794/1943930 page PDFExpert disputes can present laypeople with several challenges including trying to understand why such disputes occur. In an online survey of the U.S. public, we used a psychometric approach to elicit perceptions of expert disputes for 56 forecasts sampled from seven domains (climate change, crime, economics, environment, health, politics, terrorism). People with low education, or with low self-reported knowledge of the topic, were most likely to attribute expert disputes to expert incompetence. People with higher self-reported knowledge tended to attribute disputes to expert bias due to financial or ideological reasons. The more highly educated and cognitively able were most likely to attribute disputes to natural factors, such as the irreducible complexity and randomness of the phenomenon. We highlight several important implications of these results for scientists and risk managers and argue for further research on how people perceive and grapple with expert disputes.en-USCreative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-USExpert disagreementForecastingPublic beliefsAttributionArticle