One of the most significant societal upheavals in recent years has been the rise of fake or anti-science reporting, in which claims with no supporting data are presented alongside findings based on peer-reviewed research.

But why? Is science dead?

Not exactly.

A new analysis reveals that the same four elements that explain how people change their beliefs on different problems can also account for the rise in anti-scientific attitudes.

In modern culture, however, politics has intensified the effect of these elements, making them a formidable force in the growing rejection of science.

In a report published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, three researchers studying attitudes and persuasion describe the emergence of anti-science beliefs and what may be done to combat it.

According to the paper’s primary author, Aviva Philipp-Muller, the traditional work on persuasion still applies to what we’re seeing now as many individuals deny the science of vaccines, climate change, and other areas.  However, there are tactics that are supported by data that can help boost the public’s acceptance of science.

Philipp-Muller is currently an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University. She completed the research while pursuing her doctorate in psychology at The Ohio State University.

The authors claimed that there are four basis or pillars for anti-science sentiments. A scientific message that conflicts with a person’s current beliefs is one of these foundations, as is a mismatch between how a message is presented and a person’s style of thinking. Other foundations include believing that scientific sources lack credibility and identifying with groups that have anti-science attitudes.

“What all four of these bases have in common is,” explains co-author Richard Petty, “they reveal what happens when scientific information conflicts with what people already think or their style of thought.”

People find it difficult to deal with this kind of conflict, which makes it simpler for them to just reject scientific data that doesn’t support their existing beliefs.

However, the authors noted that there has been a noticeable rise in anti-science sentiments over the past few decades, despite the fact that these foundations can explain why individuals reject science.

Petty claimed that the recent rise in anti-vaccination campaigners in the US and worldwide has particularly surprised him.

“Vaccinations used to be a standard thing that everyone accepted. But,” Petty adds, “there have been a few developments in recent years that have made it easier to persuade people against the scientific consensus on vaccinations and other issues.”

One is, of course, the development of social media and the multitude of news outlets from which people can gather their own interpretations of the truth.

However, the writers also draw attention to a related development, namely the rise in political ideology’s significance in contemporary society.

People had political opinions and politics was always there, but it wasn’t everywhere. Politics and scientific opinions used to be distinct, but not any longer, according to Petty.

Ideology also has an impact on how people respond to scientific facts that has been politicized, such as climate change, because politics today form a fundamental component of people’s identities.

According to Philipp-Muller, “some people may reject new scientific information because it is easier to do that than overturn their pre-existing political beliefs.”

All four of the pillars of anti-science views can be triggered or amplified by politics, according to Philipp-Muller.

Take the credibility of a source as an example. According to research, people believe that those who share their political opinions are more knowledgeable and skilled. Liberals and conservatives are exposed to diverse sources of scientific information—and misinformation—because they believe different news sources to be reliable.

“Social media platforms like Facebook,” according to Philipp-Muller, “provide customized news feeds that means conservatives and liberals can get highly varied information.”

The authors say that research on attitudes and persuasion shows how to deal with some of the key ideas that lead to anti-science attitudes.

For example, one way to fight against anti-science attitudes is to send messages that show you understand other points of view.

Pro-science messages might admit that the opposing side has legitimate concerns while also laying out the advantages of the scientific viewpoint, according to Philipp-Muller.

For example, messages about stopping the spread of COVID-19 can say that wearing masks can be uncomfortable, but that the discomfort is worth it to stop the spread of disease.

Finding points of agreement with those who reject science is also important, even if those points are unrelated to science.

“People get their defenses up if they think they are being attacked or that you’re so different from them that you can’t be credible,” Petty says. “Find some places where you agree and work from there.”

Petty and Philipp-Muller expressed the hope that more scientists will study about the psychology of public speaking.

“It’s often not enough just to present a simple and accurate message,” Petty adds.

“Psychological research can help scientists learn to present their work to different kinds of audiences, including those who might be skeptical.”

“There’s an opportunity to counteract the anti-science attitudes and sentiment that is out there,” says Philipp-Muller, adding “We have to use evidence-based strategies to increase public acceptance of science.”

Image Credit: Getty

You were reading: Now We Know Why People Reject Science, And It’s Not Ignorance