Psychological Distance to Science as a Predictor of Science Skepticism Across Domains

Abstract

This article presents and tests psychological distance to science (PSYDISC) as a domain-general predictor of science skepticism. Drawing on the concept of psychological distance, PSYDISC reflects the extent to which individuals perceive science as a tangible undertaking conducted by people similar to oneself ( social), with effects in the here ( spatial) and now ( temporal), and as useful and applicable in the real world ( hypothetical distance). In six studies (two preregistered; total N = 1,630) and two countries, we developed and established the factor structure and validity of a scale measuring PSYDISC. Crucially, higher PSYDISC predicted skepticism beyond established predictors, across science domains. A final study showed that PSYDISC shapes real-world behavior (COVID-19 vaccination uptake). This work thus provides a novel tool to predict science skepticism, as well as a construct that can help to further develop a unifying framework to understand science skepticism across domains.

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality

“…Even more interesting though, the extent to which participants were able to correctly name three prominent scientists was also predictive of the perceived agreement of scientists as well as their own agreement with the controversial science topics. This suggests that an individual’s personal familiarity with scientists may be associated with their attitudes about science in general–an idea that resonates with recent suggestions that a person’s psychological distance to science (here, probably particularly perceived social distance) may impact their skepticism toward specific scientific debates or science in general [ 39 ] (see also [ 40 , 41 ] for research on psychological distance and climate change denial).…”

Who Is Skeptical About Scientific Innovation? Examining Worldview Predictors of Artificial Intelligence, Nanotechnology, and Human Gene Editing Attitudes

“…In sum, Study 1 is the first to systematically demonstrate that the distinction between spirituality and religiosity is important for understanding skepticism toward science innovations across domains, mirroring previous findings on vaccination (Rutjens & van der Lee, 2020; Rutjens, Zarzeczna, & van der Lee, 2022), and HGE skepticism (Većkalov et al, 2022). While religiosity seems to play a role in skepticism toward HGE, only spirituality was predictive of nanotechnology and AI skepticism.…”

“…Indeed, when considered alongside religiosity, spirituality emerges as a better predictor of vaccination skepticism, general faith in science, as well as pseudoscientific beliefs (Nowak et al, 2022;Rutjens et al, 2018;Rutjens & van der Lee, 2020;Rutjens, Zarzeczna, & van der Lee, 2022;Zarzeczna et al, 2023). However, spirituality has not received much attention in research on attitudes toward scientific innovations (but see Vandermoere et al, 2010;Većkalov et al, 2022). Given that scientific innovations such as nanotechnology, AI, and HGE all have implications that are at odds with the spiritual worldview that values intuitive, authentic or natural experiences (Houtman & Aupers, 2007), we expect that, in line with findings on vaccination, spirituality predicts skepticism toward these scientific innovations.…”

“…p r part Gender a .25 (.10) .016 .13 .23 (.10) .023 .12 .14 (.12) .226 .06 .13 (.12) .277 .06 .34 (.12) .004 .15 .32 (.12) .005 .14 Age .00 (.00) .443 -.04 .00 (.00) .431 -.04 -.01 (.00) .006 -.15 -.01 (.00) .005 -.15 -.01 (.00) .059 -.10 -.01 (.00 van der Lee, 2022), and HGE skepticism (Većkalov et al, 2022). While religiosity seems to play a role in skepticism toward HGE, only spirituality was predictive of nanotechnology and AI skepticism.…”

Spirituality and intentions to engage in Covid‐19 protective behaviours

“…1 1 The outcome measures reported in this manuscript were collected as part of larger projects aiming at understanding other science‐related perceptions, not reported here (see Većkalov et al., 2022; Zarzeczna et al., 2022). …”