Societal polarization over contested science has increased in recent years. To explain this development, political, sociological, and psychological research has identified societal macro-phenomena as well as cognitive micro-level factors that explain how citizens reason about the science. Here we take a radically different perspective, and highlight the effects of metacognition: How citizens reason about their own reasoning. Leveraging methods from Signal Detection Theory, we investigated the importance of metacognitive insight for polarization for the heavily contested topic of climate change, and the less heavily contested topic of nanotechnology. We found that, for climate change (but not for nanotechnology), higher insight into the accuracy of own interpretations of the available scientific evidence related to a lower likelihood of polarization over the science. This finding held irrespective of the direction of the scientific evidence (endorsing or rejecting anthropogenicity of climate change). Furthermore, the polarizing effect of scientific evidence could be traced back to higher metacognitive insight fostering belief-updating in the direction of the evidence at the expense of own, prior beliefs. By demonstrating how metacognition links to polarization, the present research adds to our understanding of the drivers of societal polarization over science.
Societal polarization over contested science has increased in the recent years. To explain thisworrisome trend, political, sociological, and psychological research has identified societal macro-phenomena as well as cognitive micro-level factors that explain how citizens reason about thescience. Here we take a radically different perspective, and highlight the effects of metacognition:How citizens reason about their own reasoning. Leveraging methods from Signal DetectionTheory, we investigated the importance of individual-level metacognitive insight for group-levelpolarization for the heavily contested topic of climate change, and the less heavily contested topicof nanotechnology. We found that, for climate change (but not for nanotechnology), increasedinsight into the accuracy of own interpretations of the available scientific evidence related tolower group-level polarization over the science. This finding held irrespective of the direction ofthe scientific evidence (endorsing or rejecting anthropogenicity of climate change). Furthermore,the polarizing effect of scientific evidence could be traced back to higher metacognitive insightfostering belief-updating in the direction of the evidence at the expense of own, prior beliefs. Bydemonstrating how individual-level metacognition links to group-level polarization, the presentresearch adds to our understanding of the drivers of societal polarization over science.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.