Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?
Aviva Philipp-Muller, Spike W. S. Lee, and Richard E. Petty
Featured Article
Basis 2: Recipient of the Scientific Message
People vary in how interested and willing they are to listen to different types of information (27, 28). A powerful force that shapes the types of information individuals expose themselves to or actively seek out is their social identities. Substantial research on social identity theory has found that the social groups to which individuals belong or feel a connection exert strong influences on their response to information perceived to be identity relevant ( 29). For example, young adults are more likely to seek out positive (vs. negative) information about young adults (their ingroup), and older individuals are more likely to seek out negative information about young adults (their outgroup) (30).
Social identities play a role in antiscience attitudes and behaviors. Those who have been underrepresented in science or who have historically been exploited in scientific experiments [e.g., Black and Indigenous individuals (31) are more skeptical of science (32). In addition to demographic groups, people can identify with interest groups that shape antiscience attitudes. For example, those who strongly identify as video gamers are more likely to reject scientific evidence regarding the harms of playing video games (33). These findings are broadly consistent with research and models in science communication that describe how people tend to reject scientific information incompatible with their identities. Work on cultural cognition has highlighted how people contort scientific findings to fit with values that matter to their cultural identities (34, 35). Relatedly, work on identity-protective cognition shows that people selectively dismiss scientifically determined risk assessments that threaten their identity (36), as when White men are more likely than other racial and gender groups to dismiss data regarding the riskiness of guns, because guns are a more integral part of their cultural identity (37).
Beyond the effects of identifying with specific demographic or cultural groups that can conflict with specific scientific findings, some individuals identify with groups that altogether ignore and shut down scientific thought, recommendations, and evidence, in general (38, 39). This sort of identity is often tied to other personally meaningful identities, particularly, political ones [and religious ones (39), a theme we elaborate on shortly. An important nuance and caveat, however, is that, although scientists might characterize some social groups as antiscience, the individuals who identify with these groups might not think of themselves as explicitly or consciously disavowing science. They might even think of themselves as proscience, in that they believe their own views are more scientifically sound than those of mainstream scientists (40). In what sense, then, are they antiscience? In the sense that, if they reject the preponderance of scientific evidence and instead favor positions with scant or pseudoscientific support, then they are de facto acting in opposition to how science works—they are against the scientific approach to knowledge creation and the knowledge created by it.
In addition to being against scientific information, individuals can be against the people providing or promoting the scientific information. This is, unfortunately, a common aspect of social identity, namely, antipathy toward those who do not share that identity and are thus part of the outgroup (41). For example, those who identify as climate change skeptics harbor hostile feelings toward climate change believers (42). For individuals who embrace an identity associated with antiscience attitudes, scientists are members of the outgroup. People tend to reject what outgroup members have to say, sometimes to the point of violence, which can arise even in the absence of substantive reasons for rejecting the outgroup member’s message other than that it comes from the outgroup (43). These forces of social identity reflect why many individuals who strongly identify with antiscience groups seem to vehemently reject scientific messages and frequently approach scientists with hostility, even threatening their lives ( 44).
Similar dynamics are evident in the marked rise in conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 (e.g., the pandemic was a hoax, or the vaccines contained microchips). These conspiracy theories often coalesce around particular social groups and are most vehemently promoted by those who feel highly identified with their pseudoscientific community (45). In recent years, conspiracy theories have led to highly visible behavior such as antimask and antivaccine protests. Due to social media, antiscience groups can now mobilize activists and followers more swiftly than in previous eras. Beyond the context of COVID-19, social groups that reject mainstream science have emerged surrounding unvalidated treatments for Lyme disease (46) and opposition to getting oneself or one’s children immunized in general (47).
Related Topics