Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

Abstract

This article describes evidence suggesting that science curiosity counteracts politically biased information processing. This finding is in tension with two bodies of research. The first casts doubt on the existence of "curiosity" as a measurable disposition. The other suggests that individual differences in cognition related to science comprehension-of which science curiosity, if it exists, would presumably be one-do not mitigate politically biased information processing but instead aggravate it. The article describes the scale-development strategy employed to overcome the problems associated with measuring science curiosity. It also reports data, observational and experimental, showing that science curiosity promotes open-minded engagement with information that is contrary to individuals' political predispositions. We conclude by identifying a series of concrete research questions posed by these results.

Swedish teenagers’ difficulties and abilities to determine digital news credibility

“…It has also been noted that attitudes to news, scientific curiosity and socio-economic factors may influence how people navigate new information, facts and digital environments (Hatlevik et al, 2015;Kahan et al, 2017;Strömbäck et al, 2013). Today, researchers find a second-level digital divide where productive ways of using digital media seem to mirror levels of education and societal inequalities (Deursen & Dijk, 2014;Hargittai, 2001Hargittai, , 2010Hatlevik & Christophersen, 2013;Hatlevik et al, 2015;Min, 2010).…”

Breaking groupthink: Why scientific identity and norms mitigate ideological epistemology

“…1 Nevertheless, we believe that dispositional and situational factors could make scientists less susceptible to partisan biases--especially during their scientific decision-making. People who have a disposition to seek out and consume scientific information are far less partisan (Kahan et al, 2017), and those who possess an identity that is premised on generating accurate beliefs, like "scientists, investigative journalists, and jurors" should be more likely to hold accurate beliefs (Van Bavel & Pereira, 2018). Indeed, scientists tend to require greater empirical consistency than non-scientists (Hogan & Maglienti, 2001).…”

Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin Volume 29 Number 2 May 2020 33–62

“…According to Adrienne Sponberg's tutorial at the 2020 Ocean Sciences Meeting, "Making Science Matter: A Review of 20 Years of SciComm and Strategies for the Future," we need to continue to build a connection between the public and science through curiosity and wonder. Social scientists have discovered that by appealing to curiosity, people are more willing to take in new information about scientific concepts that may be contrary to their own opinions (Kahan et al 2017). Getting someone to think more about environmental issues and recognize there is more out there to learn often leads to a desire to understand the world and ask more questions.…”