A new study published in Nature Human behavior reveals that in the United States, political conservatives tend to trust scientists less than liberals in a wide range of scientific fields – not simply in politically loaded fields such as climate change or public health. Despite attempts to fill this ideological gap by using targeted interventions, researchers found that brief messaging strategies were ineffective to increase the confidence of conservatives in scientists.
Previous studies had established a general ideological fracture, the liberals tending to express more confidence in scientists than conservatives. However, it was not clear how this gap took place in different scientific professions, some of which are more linked to hot button problems such as climate change, while others focus on areas such as geology or mathematics.
The new study also aimed to examine whether targeted interventions could reduce this ideological gap. If distrust of scientists does not result from scientific literacy but from perceived value conflicts, interventions could perhaps reframe science in a way that resonates to the vision of the world of conservatives.
“We initially had a set of data that included questions about political ideology and confidence in up to 45 types of scientists,” said the author of the Vukašin Gligorić study, who recently received a doctorate in social psychology from the University of Amsterdam. “When we have analyzed it, we have noticed consistent shortcomings in confidence between the Liberals and the Conservatives in the United States, in most of the 45 different scientific professions. This granularity gave us a unique opportunity to examine how confidence varies according to the domain. From there, we started to wonder: how can we fill this ideological division?
The study involved 7,800 participants in the United States, recruited to form a significant and ideologically diverse sample. Participants were classified as liberals or conservatives according to a scale of political ideology in 10 points. Each person has evaluated their level of confidence in scientists of four of the 35 different scientific professions, including climatologists, mathematicians, marine biologists and petroleum geologists. Confidence was measured using two elements on a 7 -point scale: credibility and reliability.
Liberal and conservative participants both ended the ratings of trust. However, only the conservatives were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions: a control group or one of the five intervention strategies. These strategies were designed to align scientific work with conservative values and world visions. They included the framing of science in terms of shared values, emphasizing economic co-avantages, presenting conservative scientists, highlighting the confidence of eminent conservatives in science and presenting conservative social norms in support of science. The goal was to see if one of these approaches could increase conservative confidence in scientists.
The results confirmed the previous results: the liberals, on average, showed significantly higher confidence in scientists than the conservatives. This confidence gap was not limited to a few controversial areas. The liberals expressed more confidence in the 35 professions studied. The difference was the most pronounced in fields such as climatology, virology and environmental sciences, but it also appeared in areas less politically loaded as the economy.
In particular, even in scientific disciplines which directly contribute to economic growth – such as industrial chemistry or oil geology – conservatives have always expressed less confidence than liberals. This observation calls into question the idea that conservatives trust more to scientists whose work aligns with market -based objectives.
To test if confidence could be increased, researchers have examined the effects of the five brief interventions. Each strategy was based on theories of scientific rejection which underline the role of ideology, group identity and perceived values. For example, a strategy presented scientists as sharing fundamental conservative values such as tradition and patriotism. Another has stressed how scientific progress benefits economic prosperity. Despite these efforts, none of the interventions had a significant effect. The conservatives who received the messages did not report greater confidence in scientists than those of the control group.
“There are three main dishes,” Gligorić told Psypost. “First, liberals tend to trust scientists more than conservatives. Second – and this is crucial – these differences are not as dramatic as many assume it. Even the most conservative participants reported relatively high confidence in scientists, with an average score of 4.93 (on a scale of 7 points), compared to 5.75 among the most liberal. So, overall, most people make trusses, which is achieved. Literature – in fact increased the confidence of the conservatives.
The team also examined whether the political identity force has moderated the effect of interventions. The idea was that the strongly identified conservatives could respond differently to messages adapted to their vision of the world. But again, the results have shown no significant difference. Interventions failed at all levels, whatever the strength of the participants who identified their political ideology.
“We were somewhat surprised that none of the interventions we tested led to an increase in confidence,” said Gligorić. “Given the previous results in the literature, we expected at least an effect.
These results suggest that brief and unique messaging strategies probably do not change deeply rooted attitudes towards science and scientists, especially those shaped by political ideology. The study adds to an increasing number of evidence that short interventions, such as consensus messaging or value -based calls, generally have only small unreliable effects. This is particularly true during the fight against rooted beliefs linked to identity and ideology.
“The change in significant attitude probably requires a more sustainable commitment, perhaps by dialogue or a repeated exposure,” Gligorić told Psypost. “It is therefore possible that different longer -term formats or approaches give different results.”
A limitation of current research is that it focused only on American participants. The United States is only polarized in terms of political ideology, and it remains to be seen if similar models of ideological trust gaps exist in other countries.
Gligorić stressed that the results should not be interpreted as proof that all the conservatives are deeply wary of science. On average, confidence in scientists was still relatively high through the sample. The question can reside more in the mailbox of conservative elites – such as politicians and media personalities – who deliberately launch doubt on scientific conclusions for their own gain.
“One of my main objectives is to better understand the disconnection between the general and conservative public elites in terms of science self-confidence,” he said. “Our data show that the Conservatives always express relatively high levels of trust in scientists. The problem seems to be less a public distrust and more on the way in which certain conservative elites – politicians, reflections and business actors – intentionally politicize science to serve their own interests. ”
“What we see in the United States is not an isolated phenomenon. In countries like the Netherlands and Serbia (from where I come from), the conservative elites are also increasingly targeting the academic world and the wider scientific community. They present universities and researchers as ideologically biased or out of contact, trying to translate science as a part of a liberal agend ”.
“But according to my experience, this rhetoric does not reflect the views of many ordinary conservatives,” continued Gligorić. “I have conservative friends who are really dismayed by these attacks – they assess the expertise, evidence and open demand, as well as anyone. This growing hostility towards science is not a basic movement; It is orchestrated from top to top by political actors and the media who seek to mark short -term gains, even if it comes to the expenses of long -term confidence in democratic institutions and public knowledge. ”.
“This is particularly obvious in fields such as climate change and public health, where denial and skepticism are often not rooted in the feeling of the base, but in descending messages designed to protect economic and ideological agendas. In many ways, these elites make polarization, not reminiscent of the tactics used by the tactical industry used by the tactical industry. Attitudes, but on the way in which elite speech shapes public opinion and undermines collective action on urgent scientific issues. »»
The study, “Political ideology and confidence in scientists in the United States“, Was written by Vukašin Gligorić, Gerben A. Van Kleef and Bastiaan T. Rutjens.