With the little help of science understanding: Examining the direct and indirect role of scientific reasoning and trust in science in normative health behaviour during pandemic

Abstract

This paper focuses on the science understanding (scientific reasoning and trust in science) and analytic thinking and their role in: 1) having less conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs about COVID-19, and 2) behavioral intentions in line with scientific consensus (i.e. following evidence-based guidelines and vaccination intentions). We examined these direct and indirect effect of science understanding on normative health behavior in a representative sample of Slovak population (N = 1024). The results showed more support for the indirect path: people who understand science better had generally less epistemically suspect beliefs and as a consequence, tended to behave more in line with evidence-based guidelines and were more likely to get vaccinated. Neither scientific reasoning nor trust in science predicted avoidance of preventive measures directly, but analytic thinking correlated positively with avoiding preventive measures. The strongest predictor of epistemically suspect beliefs was trust in science, which also directly predicted the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Thus, it seems that reasoning about which experts or sources to believe (second-order scientific reasoning) has become even more important than directly evaluating original evidence (first-order scientific reasoning).

I trust my immunity more than your vaccines: “Appeal to nature” bias strongly predicts questionable health behaviors in the COVID-19 pandemic

“…The youngest participants who were most prone to appeal to nature were also the ones least vaccinated. Second, trust in science both directly and indirectly predicted the vaccination status, corroborating recent findings [ 50 ], whilst trust in the wisdom of the common man did so only indirectly. As for their relation to the use of pseudoscientific practices to protect oneself from COVID-19, it was fully mediated by conspiratorial beliefs and the appeal to nature bias.…”

The Positive Association of Education with the Trust in Science and Scientists is Weaker in Highly Corrupt Countries

“…Other research had similar results and showed that respondents had more trust in messages shared by scientific sources than in messages shared by the government (Zarzeczna et al, 2021), and 73% of the public's views on the COVID-19 pandemic matched the views of scientists (Rothmund et al, 2020). Although trust in science and scientists appears to be a common heuristic, the presence of individuals with high science skepticism on critical issues like pandemics, climate change, anti-vaccination, and engaging in pseudoscientific practices sparked an interest in research on science skepticism and trust in science (e.g., Rutjens et al, 2021;Scheitle et al, 2021;Većkalov et al, 2022), and the negative consequences of distrust in science and scientists, such as lower adherence to preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Erisen, 2022;Dohle et al, 2020;Plohl et al, 2020;Sulik et al, 2021) and lower levels of vaccination (Cavojova et al, 2021;Erisen, 2022;Lalot et al, 2021;Slotte et al, 2022;Zezelj et al, 2021).…”

The positive association of education with the trust in science and scientists is weaker in highly corrupt countries

“…Although trust in science and scientists appears to be a common heuristic, the presence of individuals with high science skepticism on critical issues like pandemics, climate change, anti-vaccination, and engaging in pseudoscientific practices sparked an interest in research on science skepticism and trust in science (e.g. Rutjens et al, 2021, 2022; Scheitle and Corcoran, 2021; Većkalov et al, 2022), and the negative consequences of distrust in science and scientists, such as lower adherence to preventive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Dohle et al, 2020; Erisen, 2022; Plohl and Musil, 2020; Sulik et al, 2021) and lower levels of vaccination (Cavojova et al, 2021; Erisen, 2022; Lalot et al, 2021; Zezelj et al, 2023).…”