Although science shapes almost all aspects of our lives, the air that we breathe in phones in our pockets, many people always consider it distant, abstract and disconnected from their daily experience. While many express confidence in science as a concept, there is growing skepticism Towards the institutions and organizations that represent it, in particular when scientific results come up against personal or political identities.
Recent research has shown that this phenomenon can be explained by something called Psychological distance to science. It is the feeling that science is something – far in time (future solutions), in space (distant laboratories), in certainty (too complex or provisional), and in identify (done by people “not like me”). When people have this psychological distance to science, there are major consequences.
A recent article Describe how people who experience a greater psychological distance from science are more likely to reject it outright, especially in the fields which are already controversial, as climate changegenetically modified vaccines or foods. The more science feels far from people’s lives, the less they believe in its relevance, their usefulness or its truth. However, this psychological distance is certainly something that can change.
Even small interventions, such as presenting scientific and local scientific research, can reduce psychological distance and increase confidence in science. In experiences, participants who read a brief and relatable description of genetically modified science felt more positively on this subject and were less likely to reject it, even a week later. These results go beyond brief survey experiences, because the reduction of psychological distance to science also takes place in the real world.
What happens when people are doing science themselves
A 2023 study Explored what happened when farmers and residents of the Netherlands participated in a citizen science project where they worked with local scientists. Their goal? To measure air quality caused by nearby farming, a long -standing source of tension in the community.
Although the project has not magically erased tensions between farmers and non -agricultural neighbors, it still did something important: it has increased confidence in the scientific process as well as local authorities. Participants trusted the scientific results they measured themselves while working with scientists. Their confidence was rooted in personal participation and direct transparency. In other words, confidence prospered when people were invited to the process, when science was not something has by foreigners, but something done with They – visible, understandable, local and relevant.
Participants appreciated transparency, direct communication with scientists and the ability to observe or even challenge the data collection process. They did not blindly trust the figures; They trusted the relationship.
Overview: Confidence is the foundation
Disinformation quickly spreads into the void left by eroded confidence. When people feel that science does not serve them or is shaped by distant elites with opaque (or malicious) patterns, they are more likely to fall for comforting stories of people in whom they trust, even when they are mistaken. As I have already written, The components of confidence are very socialAnd we are more likely to trust someone when we think they have our interests at heart. You will probably feel much closer to your favorite Tiktok influencer that an abstract and faceless scientific institution.
This is why the reconstruction of confidence in science does not concern the best facts alone. It is a question of reducing psychological distance and strengthening relational confidence, which makes science feel:
- Local rather than distant
- Present rather than futuristic
- Understandable and personally relevant rather than abstract
- Made by people like usnot For Or has We
It also means that scientists and institutions must arise – not simply with data, but with empathy, transparency and collaboration.
Citizens’ science is a promising path. There are therefore better scientific communication strategies, an authentic community commitment and a reinvention of the way scientific knowledge is shared and co-created. Ideally, we would have much more opportunities for scientists to work directly with their local communities around the world. The results of Recent research Also suggest that restoration of science confidence requires culturally relevant communication and led by the community that is developed with The people he aims to serve, not just delivered has them.
If we want a future in which science is faithful, then we must bring it closer. Not only physically, but psychologically. Not only by explanation, but by connection.
A version of this post also appears on Mispecid: the newsletter.