Worldview-motivated rejection of science and the norms of science

Developing and evaluating an educational intervention on conflicts of interest and corporate influence on science

Financial conflicts of interest resulting from corporate funding of research can bias the evidence base. We designed an educational intervention that sought to enable participants to make informed decisions and mitigate risk when considering corporate funding for research. We used pre/post-test surveys, which comprised a mix of closed and open-ended questions, to evaluate the training and its impact on knowledge (Wilcoxon signed-rank test), attitudes and perceptions (Friedman's test with planned post hoc tests). Open-ended questions were coded and key themes identified. Twenty participants from the University of Bath (15 PhD students and 5 research staff) completed the pre-test survey and attended the training, 17 filled in the post-test survey, and 17 filled in the 3-month follow-up survey. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that the issues relating to conflict of interest presented in the training increased their interest in the topic. Participants' knowledge significantly increased between the pre and post-measures. Awareness of institutional conflict of interest policies and participants' confidence in mitigating the risks of corporate funding also significantly improved. For the other measures of impact, either there was not a statistically significant difference between the pre, post, and follow-up measures or there was, but post hoc tests were not significant after a Bonferroni correction. Our findings indicate that even a short educational intervention could increase researchers' confidence in and ability to make informed decisions about whether to accept corporate funding and under what conditions.

The effect of seeing scientists as intellectually humble on trust in scientists and their research

Public trust in scientists is critical to our ability to face societal threats. Here, across five pre-registered studies (N = 2,034), we assessed whether perceptions of scientists' intellectual humility affect perceived trustworthiness of scientists and their research. In study 1, we found that seeing scientists as higher in intellectual humility was associated with greater perceived trustworthiness of scientists and support for science-based beliefs. We then demonstrated that describing a scientist as high (versus low) in intellectual humility increased perceived trustworthiness of the scientist (studies 2-4), belief in their research (studies 2-4), intentions to follow their research-based recommendations (study 3) and information-seeking behaviour (study 4). We further demonstrated that these effects were not moderated by the scientist's gender (study 3) or race/ethnicity (study 4). In study 5, we experimentally tested communication approaches that scientists can use to convey intellectual humility. These studies reveal the benefits of seeing scientists as intellectually humble across medical, psychological and climate science topics.

Gender differences in climate change denial in Sweden: the role of threatened masculinity

Previous research in the Western world shows that men are in general more likely than women to deny human-induced climate change or certain aspects of it. We hypothesize that threatened masculinity contributes to such gender differences in Sweden. Threatened masculinity refers to the perception that a man's masculinity is being challenged, undermined, or devalued, often due to societal changes that advance women's rights. Given that environmental care and concern are typically associated with femininity, men who perceive that masculinity is threatened may be more likely to deny climate change to restore a sense of masculinity. Across three cross-sectional online surveys with representative samples of Swedish adults (total N = 2,476), men were more likely to deny climate change than women. Threatened masculinity-measured by belief in a shift in sexism and belongingness with men's rights activists-predicted climate change denial. In line with our hypothesis, belief in a sexism shift and, to a lesser extent, belongingness with men's rights activists mediated from gender to climate change denial. Hence threatened masculinity contributes to a higher tendency among men compared to women to deny climate change in these samples. This research adds to the understanding of gender gaps in environmental attitudes found in many Western countries and highlights climate change denial as a potential correlate of the growing gender-related polarization observed in these contexts.

Difficulties faced by physicians from four European countries in rebutting antivaccination arguments: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Physicians play a critical role in encouraging their patients to get vaccinated, in part by responding to patients' concerns about vaccines. It is, therefore, important to understand what difficulties physicians have in dealing with different concerns they may encounter. The aim of this article was to determine physicians' perceptions of difficulties in rebutting different antivaccination arguments from patients using data collected as part of a cross-sectional, cross-national questionnaire on physicians' vaccine attitudes and behaviours.

Methods

Physicians in 4 European countries (Finland, Germany, France and Portugal, total n=2718) rated 33 different arguments, chosen to represent 11 different psychological motivations underlying vaccine hesitancy, in terms of their perceptions of how difficult each argument would be to rebut.

Results

Across all countries, physicians perceived arguments based on religious concerns and 'reactance' (ie, resistance to perceived curbs of freedom) to be the most difficult to rebut, whereas arguments based on patients' distorted perception of the risks of disease and vaccines were perceived to be the easiest. There were also between-country differences in the level of perceived difficulty of argument rebuttal. Physicians' perceived difficulty with rebutting arguments was significantly negatively correlated with their vaccine recommendation behaviours and their preparedness for vaccination discussions.

Conclusions

Physicians may feel better equipped to counter arguments that can be rebutted with facts and evidence but may struggle to respond when arguments are motivated by psychological dispositions or values.

The Politicization of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Political actors and institutions are largely responsible for effectively implementing the latest scientific and medical information in the form of public health measures. However, when politicians' judgments and decision-making are not founded on scientific facts or when scientific findings are misrepresented to further political goals, global crises such as pandemics may be even more galvanized. Like other scientific topics that entered public debate before 2020 (e.g., the debate on climate change), the COVID-19 pandemic has been heavily politicized worldwide. Consequently, COVID-19-related outcomes were strongly affected by politicization-a process of making a non-political issue political, i.e., debating it in the public sphere as an issue of public contestation. The present chapter presents a condensed overview and synthesis of the literature on the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic in high- and low-income countries. In addition, we discuss several mechanisms explaining why, to some extent universally, conservatives (the right-wing oriented public) were less likely to follow public health recommendations, were more COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant, and had increased infection rates, poor health outcomes, and increased mortality compared to left-wing oriented public. The mechanisms explaining the links include the media, trust, cognitions, and values. We conclude the chapter with lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic and future research directions on the pandemics' politicization.

Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of responses to 13 questions from a 2022 national probability sample of 1,154 US adults supported the existence of five factors that we argue assess perceptions of Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation (FASS). These factors also predict support for increasing federal funding of science and, separately, supporting federal funding of basic research. Each of the factors reflects perceptions of a key facet of scientists' self-presentation, science/scientists' adherence to professed norms, or science's benefits: specifically, that scientists are Credible, Prudent, and Unbiased and that science is Self-Correcting and Beneficial. The FASS model explained 40.6% of the variance in support for increasing federal funding for science and 33.7% in support for basic research. For both dependent variables, conservatives were less likely to be supportive when they perceived that science/scientists fail to overcome biases. The interactions between political ideology and both Prudence and Beneficial, however, were significant only when predicting Basic Research support. In that case, there were no differences between conservatives and liberals when perceptions of benefit were low, but when high, liberals' perception of benefit had a stronger association with support for funding than conservatives'. Among those perceiving that scientists lack prudence, liberals were more likely to support funding basic research than conservatives, but the difference disappeared when perceptions of prudence were very high. The factors could serve as across-time indicators of the public's assessment of the state of science.

Seeking evidence and explanation signals religious and scientific commitments

Who is more committed to science: the person who learns about a scientific consensus and doesn't ask questions, or the person who learns about a scientific consensus and decides to pursue further inquiry? Who exhibits greater commitment to religious teachings: the person who accepts doctrine without question, or the person who seeks further evidence and explanations? Across three experiments (N = 801) we investigate the inferences drawn about an individual on the basis of their epistemic behavior - in particular, their decision to pursue or forgo further inquiry (evidence or explanation) about scientific or religious claims. We find that the decision to pursue further inquiry (about science or religion) is taken to signal greater commitment to science and to truth, as well as trustworthiness and good moral character (Studies 1-3). This is true even in the case of claims regarding controversial science topics, such as anthropogenic climate change (Study 3). In contrast, the decision to forgo further inquiry is taken to signal greater commitment to religion, but only when the claim under consideration contains religious content (Study 1-3). These findings shed light on perceived scientific and religious norms in our predominantly American and Christian sample, as well as the rich social inferences drawn on the basis of epistemic behavior.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

Psychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments online can threaten immunisation programmes, including those targeting COVID-19. To effectively refute misinformed views about vaccination, communicators need to go beyond providing correct information and debunking of misconceptions, and must consider the underlying motivations of people who hold contrarian views. Drawing on a taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments that identified 11 "attitude roots"-i.e., psychological attributes-that motivate an individual's vaccine-hesitant attitude, we assessed whether these attitude roots were identifiable in argument endorsements and responses to psychological construct measures corresponding to the presumed attitude roots. In two UK samples (total n = 1250), we found that participants exhibited monological belief patterns in their highly correlated endorsements of anti-vaccination arguments drawn from different attitude roots, and that psychological constructs representing the attitude roots significantly predicted argument endorsement strength and vaccine hesitancy. We identified four different latent anti-vaccination profiles amongst our participants' responses. We conclude that endorsement of anti-vaccination arguments meaningfully dovetails with attitude roots clustering around anti-scientific beliefs and partisan ideologies, but that the balance between those attitudes differs considerably between people. Communicators must be aware of those individual differences.

The politicized pandemic: Ideological polarization and the behavioral response to COVID-19

In a representative sample of the U.S. population during the first summer of the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigate how prosociality and ideology interact in their relationship with health-protecting behavior and trust in the government to handle the crisis. We find that an experimental measure of prosociality based on standard economic games positively relates to protective behavior. Conservatives are less compliant with COVID-19-related behavioral restrictions than liberals and evaluate the government's handling of the crisis significantly more positively. We show that prosociality does not mediate the impact of political ideology. This finding means that conservatives are less compliant with protective health guidelines - independent of differences in prosociality between both ideological camps. Behavioral differences between liberals and conservatives are roughly only one-fourth of the size of their differences in judging the government's crisis management. This result suggests that Americans were more polarized in their political views than in their acceptance of public health advice.

Cognitive and Cultural Factors That Affect General Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes

The development of COVID-19 vaccines is a major scientific accomplishment that has armed communities worldwide with powerful epidemic control tools. Yet, COVID-19 vaccination efforts in the US have been marred by persistent vaccine hesitancy. We used survey methodology to explore the impact of different cognitive and cultural factors on the public's general vaccination attitudes, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccination status. The factors include information literacy, science literacy, attitudes towards science, interpersonal trust, public health trust, political ideology, and religiosity. The analysis suggests that attitudes towards vaccination are influenced by a multitude of factors that operate in a complex manner. General vaccination attitude was most affected by attitudes towards science and public health trust and to a lesser degree by information literacy, science literacy, and religiosity. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines were most affected by public health trust and to a lesser extent by general trust, ideology and attitudes towards science. Vaccination status was most influenced by public health trust. Possible mediating effects of correlated variables in the model need to be further explored. The study underscores the importance of understanding the relationship between public health trust, literacies, and sociocultural factors.

The explanation-polarisation model: Pseudoscience spreads through explanatory satisfaction and group polarisation

This article presents an integrative model for the endorsement of pseudoscience: the explanation-polarisation model. It is based on a combination of perceived explanatory satisfaction and group polarisation, offering a perspective different from the classical confusion-based conception, in which pseudoscientific beliefs would be accepted through a lack of distinction between science and science mimicry. First, I discuss the confusion-based account in the light of current evidence, pointing out some of its explanatory shortcomings. Second, I develop the explanation-polarisation model, showing its explanatory power in connection with recent research outcomes in cognitive and social psychology.

Science Denial

Abstract. Science denial has adverse consequences at individual and societal levels and even for the future of our planet. The present article aimed to answer the question: What leads people to deny even the strongest evidence and distrust the scientific method? The article provides a narrative review of research on the underpinnings of science denial, with the main focus on climate change denial. Perspectives that are commonly studied separately are integrated. We review key findings on the roles of disinformation and basic cognitive processes, motivated reasoning (focusing on ideology and populism), and emotion regulation in potentially shaping (or not shaping) views on science and scientific topics. We also include research on youth, a group in an important transition phase in life that is the future decision-makers but less commonly focused on in the research field. In sum, we describe how the manifestations of denial can stem from cognitive biases, motivating efforts to find seemingly rational support for desirable conclusions, or attempts to regulate emotions when feeling threatened or powerless. To foster future research agendas and mindful applications of the results, we identify some research gaps (most importantly related to cross-cultural considerations) and examine the unique features or science denial as an object of psychological research. Based on the review, we make recommendations on measurement, science communication, and education.

Scientific-Consensus Communication About Contested Science: A Preregistered Meta-Analysis

Scientific-consensus communication is among the most promising interventions to minimize the gap between experts' and the public's belief in scientific facts. There is, however, discussion about its effectiveness in changing consensus perceptions and beliefs about contested science topics. This preregistered meta-analysis assessed the effects of communicating the existence of scientific consensus on perceived scientific consensus and belief in scientific facts. Combining 43 experiments about climate change, genetically modified food, and vaccination, we found that a single exposure to consensus messaging had a positive effect on perceived scientific consensus (g = 0.55) and on belief in scientific facts (g = 0.12). Consensus communication yielded very similar effects for climate change and genetically modified food, whereas the low number of experiments about vaccination prevented conclusions regarding this topic. Although these effects are small, communicating scientific consensus appears to be an effective way to change factual beliefs about contested science topics.

A toolkit for understanding and addressing climate scepticism

Despite over 50 years of messaging about the reality of human-caused climate change, substantial portions of the population remain sceptical. Furthermore, many sceptics remain unmoved by standard science communication strategies, such as myth busting and evidence building. To understand this, we examine psychological and structural reasons why climate change misinformation is prevalent. First, we review research on motivated reasoning: how interpretations of climate science are shaped by vested interests and ideologies. Second, we examine climate scepticism as a form of political followership. Third, we examine infrastructures of disinformation: the funding, lobbying and political operatives that lend climate scepticism its power. Guiding this Review are two principles: (1) to understand scepticism, one must account for the interplay between individual psychologies and structural forces; and (2) global data are required to understand this global problem. In the spirit of optimism, we finish by describing six strategies for reducing the destructive influence of climate scepticism.

Trends in American scientists' political donations and implications for trust in science

Scientists in the United States are more politically liberal than the general population. This fact has fed charges of political bias. To learn more about scientists' political behavior, we analyze publicly available Federal Election Commission data. We find that scientists who donate to federal candidates and parties are far more likely to support Democrats than Republicans, with less than 10 percent of donations going to Republicans in recent years. The same pattern holds true for employees of the academic sector generally, and for scientists employed in the energy sector. This was not always the case: Before 2000, political contributions were more evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. We argue that these observed changes are more readily explained by changes in Republican Party attitudes toward science than by changes in American scientists. We reason that greater public involvement by centrist and conservative scientists could help increase trust in science among Republicans.

Psychological underpinnings of pandemic denial - patterns of disagreement with scientific experts in the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic

We investigated pandemic denial in the general public in Germany after the first wave of COVID-19 in May 2020. Using latent class analysis, we compared patterns of disagreement with claims about (a) the origin, spread, or infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and (b) the personal risk from COVID-19 between scientific laypersons (N = 1,575) and scientific experts (N = 128). Two groups in the general public differed distinctively from expert evaluations. The Dismissive (8%) are characterized by low-risk assessment, low compliance with containment measures, and mistrust in politicians. The Doubtful (19%) are characterized by low cognitive reflection, high uncertainty in the distinction between true and false claims, and high social media intake. Our research indicates that pandemic denial cannot be linked to a single and distinct pattern of psychological dispositions but involves different subgroups within the general population that share high COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and low beliefs in epistemic complexity.

When Science Becomes Embroiled in Conflict: Recognizing the Public's Need for Debate while Combating Conspiracies and Misinformation

Most democracies seek input from scientists to inform policies. This can put scientists in a position of intense scrutiny. Here we focus on situations in which scientific evidence conflicts with people's worldviews, preferences, or vested interests. These conflicts frequently play out through systematic dissemination of disinformation or the spreading of conspiracy theories, which may undermine the public's trust in the work of scientists, muddy the waters of what constitutes truth, and may prevent policy from being informed by the best available evidence. However, there are also instances in which public opposition arises from legitimate value judgments and lived experiences. In this article, we analyze the differences between politically-motivated science denial on the one hand, and justifiable public opposition on the other. We conclude with a set of recommendations on tackling misinformation and understanding the public's lived experiences to preserve legitimate democratic debate of policy.

Tipping the Fencesitters—The Impact of a Minimal Intervention Enhanced with Biological Facts on Swiss Student Teachers’ Perception of HPV Vaccination Safety

Not much is known about the role of scientific knowledge in vaccination decision making. This study is based on previous findings that the concern about the human papillomavirus (HPV) agent mutating back to a virulent HPV was common among Swiss student teachers and turned out to be one factor of vaccine hesitancy. The study investigate the impact of a standard public health brochure describing the effectiveness, safety, and importance of HPV vaccination on young student teachers, and the additional effect of supplementing the standard brochure with biological arguments against the mutation concerns. It uses a pre-posttest design and assigns participants randomly to two groups, one reviewing a standard public health brochure, the other the same brochure enhanced with additional biological information. Participants in both groups showed a significant positive change in their beliefs about vaccination safety, effectiveness, and importance in preventing cervical cancer. Post hoc analysis showed significant safety beliefs gain for the subgroup of participants who received the biology-enhanced text and held moderate, rather than high or low, pretest safety beliefs—the so-called fencesitters. We conclude that these fencesitters may particularly profit from even minimal (biologically supplemented) interventions, an effect that should receive more attention in future research.