Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?

Aviva Philipp-Muller, Spike W. S. Lee, and Richard E. Petty

Featured Article

Targeting Basis 1: Increasing Perception of Scientific Information Sources as Credible

Scientists lack credibility when they are perceived as inexpert, untrustworthy, or biased. To tackle emerging concerns about the quality of scientists’ work and their perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and objectivity, scientists need to improve the validity of their research (109) and establish the replicability and reproducibility of their findings. Scientists also need to communicate to the public that substantive debate and disagreement are inherent to the scientific process and signal a healthy scientific landscape, a point often missed by lay people who expect a given scientific finding to be absolute (17). To maximize effectiveness, scientists and science organizations need to recruit journalists, health officials, politicians, or key opinion leaders to join these communicative efforts, as they are often the sources conveying scientific information directly to the public or the sources that the public already trusts.

To reduce distrust in scientists due to their perceived coldness (12), when scientists communicate their findings and recommendations, they should ameliorate the unfavorable impressions by intentionally conveying interpersonal warmth and highlighting the communal nature of science, a tactic that has proven effective for a different but related goal—recruiting girls and women into STEM training programs and careers (12). Another strategy that is related to but distinct from conveying warmth is for scientists to communicate that they are pursuing prosocial goals in their work. When people perceive scientists as prosocial, they have greater trust in science (110).

Scientists also often use excessively complex language when communicating science to the general public (111). To mitigate the negative perception from jargon-laden wording that conceals the meaning of the science from lay people, scientists should use language that conveys their message clearly and precisely while still being accessible to a general audience. One specific suggestion in this vein, which most journals have yet to adopt, is for published articles to include “lay summaries” along with the more jargon-laden abstracts, so that interested lay people can better glean the information in terms that they can understand (112).

To reduce perceived bias, scientists should attempt to communicate in a balanced manner whenever possible. When communicators offer a nuanced, multifaceted perspective, especially if they change positions in the face of new evidence, they are perceived as less biased and more persuasive (113). When a communicator expresses openness to alternative views, especially when of high status, this can increase openness in committed recipients (114). For example, those who saw the issue of wearing masks in the COVID-19 pandemic as a moral impingement on their rights were more open to wearing masks when a communicator acknowledged the recipient’s view but explained why the promask position was preferable (115). Importantly, we are not suggesting that communicators adopt a position of false neutrality or “both sidesism.” Instead, we are suggesting that they honestly acknowledge any drawbacks of their position while ultimately explaining in clear and compelling terms why their position is still the most supported or more justifiable one.

Previous | Next Targeting Basis 2: Decreasing Recipients’ Identification with Antiscience Groups