The nature and origins of political polarization over science

Abstract

People have a tendency to disregard information that contradicts their partisan or ideological identity. This inclination can become especially striking when citizens reject notions that scientists would consider “facts” in the light of overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus. The resulting polarization over science has reached alarming levels in recent years. This theoretical review conceptualizes political polarization over science and argues that it is driven by two interrelated processes. Through psychological science rejection, people can implicitly disregard scientific facts that are inconsistent with their political identity. Alternatively, citizens can engage in ideological science rejection by adhering to a political ideology that explicitly contests science. This contestation can in turn be subdivided into four levels of generalization: An ideology can dispute either specific scientific claims, distinct research fields, science in general, or the entire political system and elite. By proposing this interdisciplinary framework, this article aims to integrate insights from various disciplines.

Are some physicians afraid of the COVID-19 vaccines? A tale of motivated reasoning

“…5,9 That may lead to non-evidence-based treatments 19 , which may be based on heuristics 5,20 structured by motivated reasoning, a cognitive predisposition to satisfy the need to belong to a particular group/identity at the expense of rationality. 3,6 Within the model of identityprotective cognition, belief polarization could be explained as a process of motivated reasoning driven by the individual psychological need to maintain beliefs that preserve their status in the groups they are affiliated to. 3,6 as a tacit sanction of publicly going against group ideology may be ostracism.…”

“…3 To what extent cognition is inherently biased and how, on top of that, institutional/elite cues and ideology-rich contexts interact with mindsets has been open for debate for, at least, fifty years now. 3,6 Since it has been posited that, in public debate, individuals who perceive their opinion to belong to a minority would commonly rather silence than expose themselves to rejection. 7 Belonging to groups and, thus, to identities plays an important part in cognition and decision-making.…”

“…7 Belonging to groups and, thus, to identities plays an important part in cognition and decision-making. 3,6,7 Those phenomena appear to manifest even among physicians. 5 Such a debate on a vaccine, held in public, without proper evidence to inform it offers little to no benefit to policy-makers and society in general.…”

“…5 Such a debate on a vaccine, held in public, without proper evidence to inform it offers little to no benefit to policy-makers and society in general. It is rather unscientific, however, as it offers fertile grounds for misinformation stirring unnecessary polarization [1][2][3]6,7 that may harm the only message that matters right now, the common message around which all physicians and the scientific community should band together during these next months: everyone must get vaccinated no matter what approved vaccine is available in their countries, as there is no possibility of ending the pandemic without vaccination. 8 By doing so, we not only acknowledge these remarkable scientific achievements of the past year, but we also avoid undermining public perception of the sanitary regulatory agencies behind the rigorous vetting of these new pieces of biomedical technology.…”

Canadian Continental-Scale Hydrology under a Changing Climate: A Review

“…Investments in science communication of integrated model outcomes are equally, if not more so, critical to the uptake and impact of model outputs. With the recent rise of skepticism in science [71][72][73], we need to do better as a scientific community to reestablish public trust. That begins with communicating our findings in non-technical, highly visual and interactive ways.…”