Why do some mistrust science, and what can scientists do about it?

Understanding why people may overlook scientific evidence when forming opinions could help scientists and science communicators better engage the public.

Recently, researchers highlighted four key reasons why people may overlook scientific evidence when forming opinions, alongside strategies to improve communication.

“The authors echo many of the important recommendations that science communication researchers and practitioners have promoted for a long time now,” Dr. Dietram A. Scheufele, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was not involved in the study, told Medical News Today.

“Maybe most prominently: Communicate your messages in ways that respond to rather than ridicule things that are important to the people you try to reach,” he explained.Framework

For the study, the researchers connected contemporary findings on anti-science attitudes with principles from research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and acceptance versus rejection of information.

In doing so, they identified four principles that underlie the rejection of scientific evidence when forming opinions:

source of the scientific message — when sources of scientific information, such as scientists, are perceived as inexpert or untrustworthy

recipient of the scientific message — when scientific information activates one’s social identity as a member of a group that holds anti-science attitudes, that has been underrepresented in science or exploited by scientific work

the scientific message itself — when scientific information contradicts preexisting beliefs, what people think is favorable and a preexisting sense of morality

mismatch between the delivery of the message and the recipient’s epistemic style — when information is delivered in ways that a reader does not conceptually understand, or that does not address their need for closure.

Dr. Bastiaan Rutjens, assistant professor of Social Psychology at the University of Amsterdam, not involved in the study, told MNT that “[i]t is important to appreciate that anti-science beliefs do not represent some monolithic entity but are rather diverse and […] reflect potentially very different attitude objects.”

“In some cases, scientific literacy is a more important antecedent and so the principle pertaining to thinking style might be more important, whereas in other cases political ideology plays a key role and yet in other cases religious or spiritual beliefs clash with scientific theories,” he noted.

Counteracting anti-science beliefs

To counteract the above principles, the researchers suggested several solutions. For “source of scientific message” they recommended:

improving the perceived validity of scientists’ work

conveying warmth and prosocial goals in science communication and using accessible language

conveying that the source is not antagonistic by portraying both sides of the argument.

To address “recipient of the scientific message,” they recommended activating a shared or superordinate identity when communicating science and engaging and collaborating with marginalized communities.

For “the scientific message itself,” the researchers recommended:

training in scientific reasoning

prebunkingTrusted Source

strong arguments

self-affirmation

moral reframing

increasing the perceived naturalness and moral purity of scientific innovations.

Dr. Scott Morgan, associate professor of psychology at Drew University, not involved in the study, told MNT:

“The public may not always understand that science is a process of refining knowledge, and although errors happen, a scientist will update their beliefs in light of the best evidence. The public may come to believe that scientists ‘don’t know what they’re talking about’ when in fact, they are grappling with new, complex information and updating beliefs in light of new findings.”

For “mismatch between delivery and recipients’ epistemic style,” they suggested conveying information in a style that matches their way of knowing, such as “framing messages as approaching gains for promotion-focused recipients, but as avoiding losses for prevention-focused recipients.”

The researchers concluded that “scientists should be poised to empathize” with the people they try to reach to best communicate their ideas.