Conservative Americans are constantly wary of science, according to survey

Conservatives in America seem to be wary of science more broadly than we thought before. Not only do they be wary of sciences which do not correspond to their vision of the world, but also, compared to liberal Americans, their confidence is also lower in the fields which contribute to economic growth and productivity. Short interventions aimed at strengthening confidence have little effect. This emerges from new research of social psychologists at the University of Amsterdam, which has now been published In Nature Human behavior.

Science helps solve major societal problems, such as pandemics and climate change. But if people do not trust scientists, they will be less likely to accept scientific solutions. “In America, but also in other countries, conservatives generally have confidence in science,” said one of the researchers involved, Bastiaan Rutjens. “Since the 1980s, the confidence of science among conservatives in America has even dropped.”

Part of the explanation is that scientific results Do not align yourself with the political or economic beliefs of the conservatives. “But science is also increasingly rejected in certain circles such as a” left-hand pastime “and universities like bastions of the left establishment,” adds Rutjens. The researchers wanted to better understand how confidence varies to the other and if short interventions could strengthen confidence.

Researchers interviewed 7,800 Americans about 35 different scientific professions, ranging from anthropologists to biologists and atomic physicists. They examined the differences between people who identified as conservatives or liberals.

They then tested five interventions aimed at increasing confidence in scientists specifically among the conservatives. These interventions have addressed the reasons why people can be wary of science: its marign perceived with moral values ​​or the idea that scientists are not part of their group. Interventions underlined how scientific results were really in line with conservative beliefs or presented conservative scientists.

Less confidence in all fields

Liberals have had more confidence than conservatives in the 35 scientific professions that have been examined – not only in areas that correspond to their priorities, such as climate change or inclusion, but also in industry areas. However, the differences in confidence levels were not entirely uniform, with levels varying according to the scientific field.

The gap was particularly important for climatologistsMedicine researchers and Social Sciences Specialists. “This is probably due to the fact that the results in these areas often conflict with conservative beliefs, such as a free market economy or conservative social policies,” said Rutjens.

The confidence gap was smaller in technical and applied disciplines, such as industrial chemistry. “These fields are more focused on economic growth And productivity, “adds Rutjens.” But it remains striking that even here, the Conservatives show lower confidence. Their distrust extends to science as a whole. “”

Another striking conclusion was that none of the five interventions managed to increase conservative confidence in scientists. Even when the message was well aligned with their values, their attitude has hardly changed. “This suggests that their distrust is deeply rooted and not easily changed,” explains Rutjens.

Stronger interventions necessary

Rutjens is struggling to predict the evolution of scientific mistrust. “Extreme things happen in America right now. But even here in the Netherlands, we see unprecedented discussions that take place around science, sometimes accompanied by significant mistrust. “”

As the new research shows, it is difficult to strengthen confidence in science using rapid interventions. “This does not mean that it is impossible, but these short interventions do not work to make science more transparent and reliable for certain groups,” explains Rutjens. “We need stronger interventions that make science really personal. What can contribute to science in your life here and now?”