Summary
This content was automatically synthesized by Credo's AI models directly from the original source text.
AI summaries can make mistakes — double-check important details against the original source.
1 Sample Definition And Size
The study involved natural scientists, specifically 19 individuals holding Ph.D. degrees in natural science fields and employed as researchers or professors at two major universities. A control group of 15 scientists without preconceptions was also included. ([en.wikipedia.org](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance?utm_source=openai))
2 Study Type
This was an experimental study involving hands-on measurement tasks designed to induce a conflict between theoretical expectations and empirical observations, to investigate belief-dependence of observations and resistance to conceptual change. ([tandfonline.com](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s1532690xci0902_1?utm_source=openai))
3 Conflicts Of Interest
No conflicts of interest or potential sources of bias were declared in the available information. ([drnissani.net](https://drnissani.net/mnissani/pagepub/CCc%26i.htm?utm_source=openai))
4 Results Summary
Key findings include: mean discrepancy for the second measurements of the small sphere was 30.5%, and for the larger sphere 37.5%, both significantly different from participants' expectations (t(df=2, two-tailed, N=13)=5.9, p<.0005). Discrepancies varied widely among individuals (13.9% to 53.5% for combined average discrepancies; SDs: 6.9 for first sphere, 17.6 for second). Control group discrepancies ranged from 28.2% to 61.8% (SD=10). Cylinder measurement discrepancies ranged from 0.02% to 14.6% (SD=3.6). Most participants adjusted their observations to align with expectations rather than abandoning the false formula. ([drnissani.net](https://drnissani.net/mnissani/pagepub/CCc%26i.htm?utm_source=openai))