The psychological roots of the rejection (and acceptance) of science

Matthew Andreotta

Postdoctoral Fellow at CSIRO

26 May 2023



 Blog: matt-lab.github.io

 LinkedIn: @matthew-andreotta



 Link to handout: tinyurl.com/antiscience-materials

 Link to slides: tinyurl.com/antiscience-workshop

Housekeeping


  • Who is this man? 👋
  • Workshop materials 📃
  • By the end of today ✔️
  • Today’s plan 📋

Today’s plan


  1. Trust in science
  2. What is anti-science?
  3. The psychological roots of anti-science
  4. Shifting anti-science to science
  5. The psychological roots of science (or anti-anti-science)

Trust in science

Public trust of science

Good news! Australians generally trust science

Growing concerns

“Misinformation about climate science … has sowed uncertainty, and impeded [the public’s] recognition of risk” (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022, Chapter 12)

“Misinformation costs lives. Without the appropriate trust and correct information, diagnostic tests go unused, immunization campaigns … will not meet their targets, and the virus will continue to thrive.” (World Health Organization, 2020)

“In effect, disinformation can affect the full range of human rights by disrupting people’s ability to make informed decisions about policies relating to, for example, the environment, crime, migration and education, among other issues of public interest and concern.” (Secretary-General to United Nations General Assembly, 2022, p. 3)

What is anti-science?

What is anti-science?

Anti-science are relatively-enduring claims of an event, object, process, person, or group of people that is inconsistent with scientific consensus or methods

  • Not necessarily a rejection of all science
  • Not all anti-science claims are equally harmful

Harmless anti-science?

Wikipedia’s List of Common Misconceptions

Harmful anti-science?

Sign from Freedom Rally, Melbourne, 2021

  • Despite their diversity, anti-science claims may be underpinned by similar (but not identical) psychology (Rutjens et al., 2021)

Anti-science claims

  • Public encounter science through the simplified claims of science, not multi-page papers
  • E.g., headlines, social media posts
  • Anti-science status of claims can be difficult to verify (truth is not always clear)
  • Anti-science claims may be imbued with an unfalsifiable claim or demand
  • Which of the following signs from Melbourne’s 2021 Freedom Rally have anti-science claims?

Anti-science claims about climate change

What are some anti-science claims about your own field?

Activity: What are some anti-science claims about your own field?

Brainstorm some examples of anti-science claims about your own field, in section 1.1 of the handout.

It could be broad (“climate change impacts are overstated”) or specific (“the World Economic Forum proposed 15-minute cities to begin a Great Reset by climate-crazed tyrants and conspiracies”).

Some questions to reflect on:

  • Have you encountered misconceptions about your field in conversations (chatting with stakeholders, dinner with family)?
  • What are some common misconceptions of your field shared on social media or the news?
  • When aren’t facts enough to convince people?
  • When do conversations about your science become heated?

The psychological roots of anti-science

The foundations of anti-science claims

Mental models are a cognitive representation of the elements and the causal relations (or patterns) of a world.

  • Mental models can be chosen to generate or explain anti-science claims
  • Mental models can be inconsistent and incomplete

Claim
Facts, observations, or predictions

Mental model
Representation of the system and its causes

Identifying mental models

  • Mental models can be identified via verbal protocol (e.g., asking people ‘why?’)
  • E.g., we explored the psychological foundations of Australian’s climate change views (Andreotta et al., 2022)
  • 435 Australians ranked 30 climate change claims (derived from Twitter) according to congruence with point of view
  • For statements ranked most similar to their point of view, participants were asked for justification
  • We found three styles of ranking, reflective of ‘Acceptors’, ‘Fencesitters’, and ‘Sceptics’ profiles

Claim
“Scientists should stop falsely claiming that climate change is a settled science”

Mental model
“Only some scientists are saying this. Listen to all - they are not all singing from the same hymn book”

Your turn!

Activity: The foundations of mental models

  1. Choose one of the following claims that you generally agree with (or think of your own):
  • “Pressing coastal and marine issues, such as climate change, … are, in many ways, governance problems.”
  • “It is critical to develop an understanding of the ocean’s biophysical limits”
  • “Marine ecosystems cannot support ongoing growth without transformational change”

Write down your chosen claim in section 2.1 of the handout.

  1. Ask yourself “why do I believe this?” and write down your response in section 2.2 of the handout.
  2. Repeat step 2 and 3 with your new response in section 2.2 of the handout. Stop once you feel you are going around in circles, or reach something that just “is”.

The foundations of mental models

Claim
Facts, observations, or predictions

Mental model
Representation of the system and its causes

Worldview
Fundamental understandings of the world

  • Based on Causal Layered Analysis (Inayatullah, 2004)
  • Fundamental understandings shape what we say (claim) and how we think (mental model)
  • Culturally transmitted understandings shaped by individual experience (Koltko-Rivera, 2004)
  • E.g., What is human nature? What is knowledge? What is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’? What is an ideal world?

The nature of the world

Fundamental understandings of the world, society, and human nature

  • Cultural and environmental worldviews
  • Political ideology
  • Conspiracist worldviews
  • The nature of knowledge
  • The nature of goodness

Cultural worldviews

Fundamental understandings on the structure of society

worldview_cultural Individualism Individualism “Free markets—not government programs—are the best way to supply people with the things they need” X Individualism->X Communitarian Communitarian “It’s society’s responsibility to make sure everyone’s basic needs are met” Hierarchist Hierarchist “We have gone too far in pushing equal rights in this country” Hierarchist->X Egalitarian Egalitarian “Discrimination against minorities is still a very serious problem in our society” X->Communitarian X->Egalitarian

Environmental worldviews

Fundamental understandings on the interaction between society and environment

worldview_environment Individualism Individualism “Ultimately, there’s nothing individuals can do to manage or change the natural environment” X Individualism->X Communitarian Communitarian “When pushed beyond the limits identified by experts the natural environment will not recover” X->Communitarian

Political ideology

Conspiracist worldviews

Powerful, malevolent groups coordinate in secret to deceive the public

The nature of knowledge

What is knowledge and where does it come from?

  • How can we know?
  • Who are trusted sources of knowledge?
  • Scientists might disagree about particular methods or statistics
  • Indigenous knowledge systems
  • Science can legitimise existing power structures, have vested interests, etc.
  • Science-related populism casts scientists as the nefarious elite (Mede & Schäfer, 2020; Mede, Schäfer, Metag, & Klinger, 2022)
  • Do scientists have the right to declare what is known?
  • Do scientists have the right to make their own research agendas and curtail problematic fields?
  • Who should scientists be accountable to?

The nature of goodness

Fundamental understandings of what is right and wrong

  • Worldviews and ideologies are often imbued with sense of right versus wrong
  • Moral understanding (e.g., preventing harm) and justice
  • E.g., Vaccination ‘rejectors’ value purity and liberty more than others (Rossen, Hurlstone, Dunlop, & Lawrence, 2019)
  • What is harm and who can be harmed? The environment? The economy? Future generations? Technological growth?
  • Values (Schwartz, 2012)
    1. Openness to change (self-direction versus tradition and conformity)
    2. Self-transcendence (benevolence versus achievement and power)

The underpinnings of anti-science

Claim
Facts, observations, or predictions

Mental model
Representation of the system and its causes

Worldviews
Fundamental understandings of the world

  • What is true about people, culture, & environment?
  • What is truth, how is it made, & who makes it?
  • What is good & how do we achieve it?

Activity: The underpinnings of anti-science

Choose an anti-science claim from section 1.1 of your handout. Reflect on the worldviews of someone who might endorse your chosen anti-science claim. Write down these in section 1.3. Some prompts:

  1. Is this person likely to see the world in a particular way?
  2. Is this person likely to see knowledge in a particular way?
  3. To this person, could adherence to your chosen anti-science claim add good (or reduce bad) in the world?

The needs underpinning anti-science

  • Adopting anti-science views can satisfy psychological needs (K. Douglas, Sutton, & Cichocka, 2017; Hornsey, 2020)

  • Psychological needs can shape the logic between layers

  • Epistemic needs

    • Need for cognitive consistency
    • Uncertainty tolerance
    • Proportionality bias
  • Existential needs (e.g., phobias, protect way of life)
  • Social needs
    • Personal identity expression (distinctiveness)
    • Social identity expression (internalise and exemplify attitudes and values of groups)
  • Material needs (e.g., vested interests)

The needs underpinning anti-science
Psychological Needs

Epistemic
Our need to know

Existential
Our need to exist

Social
Our need to belong

Material
Our need to own/consume

Psychological World

Claim
Facts, observations, or predictions

Worldviews
Fundamental understandings of the world

  • What is true about people, culture, & environment?
  • What is truth, how is it made, & who makes it?
  • What is good & how do we achieve it?

Mental model
Representation of the system and its causes

Shifting anti-science to science

Changing anti-science beliefs

What we’ve discussed

  1. Belief in anti-science claims may reflect deep understandings of the world
  2. Belief in anti-science claims may satisfy psychological needs

Implications for science communicators

  1. Messages compatible with audience worldview are more likely to be accepted
  2. Messages that emphasise how science can satisfy psychological needs are more likely to be accepted
  • How can we frame science messages to be compatible with alternative worldviews?
  • How can we leverage psychological needs to communicate science?

Climate science communication

  • Australian’s climate change views fall into one of three profiles: Acceptors, Fencesitters, and Sceptics (Andreotta et al., 2022)
  • Each profile contained some misunderstanding of science

Profile: Acceptors

The anti-science: Overconfidence in the effectiveness of ‘green’ climate change mitigation (e.g., recycling)

The foundation: Concern for environmental harms, worldviews and ideology encourages belief in anthropogenic climate change

The recommendation: Leverage need for cognitive consistency

Profile: Fencesitters

The anti-science: On average, do not perceive climate change as harmful.

The foundation: Some harbour conspiracist worldviews, some are disengaged.

The recommendation: Emphasise threat of disinformation, encourage critical reflection.

Profile: Sceptics

The anti-science: Do not perceive climate change as harmful or anthropogenic.

The foundation: Conservative ideology, solution aversion.

The recommendation: Leverage social needs by using messages from conservative sources or stories from former climate change deniers. Leverage need for cognitive consistency to emphasise belief in empiricism and science.

Changing anti-science views

Activity: Brainstorming communication strategies

What communication might be effective in changing your chosen anti-science claim? Write down your thoughts in section 1.5.

Consider:

  • Can you make a message compatible with the recipient’s worldview?
  • Can you emphasise how your message might satisfy the recipient’s psychological needs?

The psychological roots of science (or anti-anti-science)

The psychological roots of science (or anti-anti science)
Psychological Needs

Epistemic
Our need to know

Existential
Our need to exist

Social
Our need to belong

Material
Our need to own/consume

Psychological World

Claim
Facts, observations, or predictions

Worldviews
Fundamental understandings of the world

  • What is true about people, culture, & environment?
  • What is truth, how is it made, & who makes it?
  • What is good & how do we achieve it?

Mental model
Representation of the system and its causes

  • Scientific claims follow the same structure, needs and assumptions may differ
  • E.g., epistemic needs and understandings drive scientists to explain observations

What about you?

Activity: Your psychological roots

Reflect on the science claim you chose in an earlier activity, noting your thoughts in sections 2.3 to 2.5

  1. Can you identify the worldviews that might shape this claim?
  2. Can you identify the psychological needs that might drive belief in this claim?

Consider:

  • What would it take to change your mind?
  • Do you feel emotionally connected to this statement?
  • Do you feel the world would be worse off if nobody believed this claim?
  • If you no longer believed this claim, would you feel like a different person?
  • Would your family, friends, and colleagues agree with this statement? Would they think less of you if you no longer agreed with this claim?

Summary

  • Scientists are often trusted authorities, giving us unique power to combat disinformation/misinformation
  • Anti-science (and science) belief can be underpinned by fundamental understandings and assumptions about the world
  • Fundamental understandings privilege some explanations over others to satisfy psychological needs
  • Psychological needs can also encourage belief change
  • Communication can be more effective when tailored to satisfy psychological needs and when messages are compatible with worldviews

Thank you

Some useful readings

  • Hornsey (2020) reviews the psychological motivations for anti-science beliefs
  • Philipp-Muller, Lee, & Petty (2022) use the persuasion literature to recommend strategies for counteracting anti-science views
  • Lewandowsky et al. (2020) and Lewandowsky & Cook (2020) provide short primers for debunking misinformation and conspiracy theories, respectively

References

3M State of Science. (2022). 2022 Survey Data | State of Science Index Survey | 3M Australia. https://www.3m.com.au/3M/en_AU/state-of-science-index-survey-au/interactive-3m-state-of-science-survey/.
Andreotta, M., Boschetti, F., Farrell, S., Paris, C., Walker, I., & Hurlstone, M. (2022). Evidence for three distinct climate change audience segments with varying belief-updating tendencies: Implications for climate change communication. Climatic Change, 174(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03437-5
Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C. (2014). Solution Aversion: On the Relation Between Ideology and Motivated Disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
Coan, T. G., Boussalis, C., Cook, J., & Nanko, M. O. (2021). Computer-assisted classification of contrarian claims about climate change. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 22320. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01714-4
Douglas, K., Sutton, R., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1983). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press.
Hornsey, M. J. (2020). Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(6), 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969364
Hornsey, M. J. (2021). The role of worldviews in shaping how people appraise climate change. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.02.021
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018a). Relationships Among Conspiratorial Beliefs, Conservatism and Climate Scepticism across Nations. Nature Climate Change, 8(7), 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., & Fielding, K. S. (2018b). The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 37(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000586
Inayatullah, S. (2004). The Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) Reader: Theory and Case Studies of an Integrative and Transformative Methodology. Tamkang University Press.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). North America. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Jacques, P. J., Dunlap, R. E., & Freeman, M. (2008). The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17(3), 349–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010802055576
Jolley, D., & Paterson, J. L. (2020). Pylons ablaze: Examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12394
Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (2007). Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White-Male Effect in Risk Perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00097.x
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The Psychology of Worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3
Lewandowsky, S. (2021). Conspiracist Cognition: Chaos, Convenience, and Cause for Concern. Journal for Cultural Research, 25(1), 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14797585.2021.1886423
Lewandowsky, S., & Cook, J. (2020). The Conspiracy Theory Handbook.
Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Ecker, U. K. H., Albarracín, D., Amazeen, M. A., Kendeou, P., … Zaragoza, M. S. (2020). The Debunking Handbook 2020. https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013). The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science. PLOS ONE, 8(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
Martin, A., Mikołajczak, G., Baekkeskov, E., & Hartley, K. (2022). Political stability, trust and support for public policies: A survey experiment examining source effects for COVID-19 interventions in Australia and Hong Kong. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(3), edac024. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac024
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 100–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276409356001
Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259
Mede, N. G., Schäfer, M. S., Metag, J., & Klinger, K. (2022). Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0271204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271204
Pew Research Center. (2022). Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Other Groups Declines.
Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S. W. S., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2120755119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120755119
Price, J. C., Walker, I. A., & Boschetti, F. (2014). Measuring Cultural Values and Beliefs about Environment to Identify their Role in Climate Change Responses. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.10.001
Rossen, I., Hurlstone, M. J., Dunlop, P. D., & Lawrence, C. (2019). Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes. Social Science & Medicine, 224, 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.01.038
Rutjens, B. T., van der Linden, S., van der Lee, R., & Zarzeczna, N. (2021). A group processes approach to antiscience beliefs and endorsement of “alternative facts.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 513–517. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211009708
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult., 2(1), 1–20.
Secretary-General to United Nations General Assembly. (2022). Countering disinformation for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Tranter, B. (2023). Do Australians trust scientists? It depends on the “science.” Australian Journal of Social Issues. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.263
World Health Organization. (2020). Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation.