Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

Abstract

From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, antiscience views are threatening humanity. When different individuals are provided with the same piece of scientific evidence, why do some accept whereas others dismiss it? Building on various emerging data and models that have explored the psychology of being antiscience, we specify four core bases of key principles driving antiscience attitudes. These principles are grounded in decades of research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and information processing. They apply across diverse domains of antiscience phenomena. Specifically, antiscience attitudes are more likely to emerge when a scientific message comes from sources perceived as lacking credibility; when the recipients embrace the social membership or identity of groups with antiscience attitudes; when the scientific message itself contradicts what recipients consider true, favorable, valuable, or moral; or when there is a mismatch between the delivery of the scientific message and the epistemic style of the recipient. Politics triggers or amplifies many principles across all four bases, making it a particularly potent force in antiscience attitudes. Guided by the key principles, we describe evidence-based counteractive strategies for increasing public acceptance of science.

The World Upside Down: The Pandemic Redefines Globalization

“…However, they are not the same. This was revealed to me empirically during immersive field data-gathering experiences such as my intensive fieldwork among the Egyptian Nubians (1963)(1964)(1965) (Callender and El Guindi 1971;El Guindi 1962;1963-19651966;1978) and later among the Valley Zapotec of Oaxaca (1968Oaxaca ( -1980 (El Guindi 1972[19801973;1977a;1977b;1982).…”

Placing “trust” in science: The urban–rural divide and Americans’ feelings of warmth toward scientists

“…Put simply, in this study, Americans living in more rural counties tended to report colder feelings toward scientists, on average, than people living in more urban areas, even while controlling for possible confounds. Before discussing this finding in more detail, I want to clearly state that it should not be interpreted as evidence that rural people are “anti-science.” Although some recent and high-profile discussions of public opinion about science have described different publics as “anti-science” by various measures (see, for example, Phillipp-Muller et al, 2022), I take the position that “anti-science” is an empirically and ethically dubious label (see, for example, Hilgartner et al, 2021 and Krause et al, 2021).…”

Hippies Next to Right-Wing Extremists?

“…However, conspiracy beliefs and esotericism are less likely to reflect an endorsement of the status quo: They rather indicate an alternative worldview that is detached from official, mainstream explanations (Ward & Voas, 2011). Conspiracy beliefs, esotericism, downplaying of the coronavirus, and vaccine hesitancy can all be considered examples of antiscience attitudes (Philipp-Muller et al, 2022): Their adherents reject mainstream scientific knowledge, distrust official institutions, and claim to possess secret, special, or higher knowledge that is undetectable by current scientific methods (Pöhlmann, 2021). Consistent with the notion of conspirituality, such unwarranted claims about society and the nature of the universe appear to be a commonality of protestors with diverse sociopolitical backgrounds.…”