Not knowing enough science then?
Empirical evidence from the scientific community may be difficult for the public to interpret, learning to a disconnect of one’s opinion from the scientific consensus.
Since individuals on both sides of the political spectrum seem to process scientific research to fit their own cultural worldview, one can speculate that this may arise due to a lack of science literacy. This speculation has many names: the public irrationality thesis, science comprehension thesis, or simply the deficit model. Empirical evidence from the scientific community may be difficult for the public to interpret, leading to a disconnect of one’s opinion from the scientific consensus. Many science journals and news institutions such as Morning Sign Out aim to combat this issue by making science research accessible and understandable to a general audience.
While striving to increase science literacy in the public is well-intended, the public irrationality thesis has limitations as well. In a different research study, Dan Kahan et al. assessed the relationship between a subject’s science literacy and their perceived risk attributed to climate change. To align with the public irrationality thesis, the results should show that a high level of science literacy should correlate with a higher perceived risk of climate change. Unfortunately, this pattern was not observed.
Image Source: Maskot
Instead, perceived risk of climate change remained stagnant between science illiterate and science literate subjects. In fact, views on climate change were more polarized in subjects with a higher level of science literacy. When considering the subjects’ political affiliation, Kahan observed the same pattern of conservatives perceiving a low risk of climate change, while liberals perceived a high risk, even in those who were science literate. Another group of researchers, Caitlin Drummond and Baruch Fischhoff, found similar findings in a separate study. Their results illustrate that individuals with higher levels of education and science literacy held more polarized beliefs on other controversial science topics such as stem cell research. Even messages about scientific consensus do not appear to change beliefs in subjects when asked about their stance on GMO safety.
Why is this science literacy paradox happening?
Kahan reasons that group identities and affiliations play a key role in how the public processes and perceives scientific evidence. He describes this explanation through the cultural cognition thesis. Individuals will perceive risks that align with the cultural values held by their identity groups. Also known as motivated reasoning, this tendency to selectively assess evidence to conform to a motivated goal may not always align with accuracy. For controversial science issues such as vaccine safety and GMOs, individuals will selectively process and assess empirical scientific evidence in ways that conform to their group identities. This explains the patterns of both conservatives and liberals subjectively assessing scientific evidence. It would also explain why those who are scientifically literate hold the most polarized views on controversial science issues like climate change. Even with a background and understanding in science, individuals get better at assessing empirical evidence and subjectively interpret the results to fit more strongly with the cultural beliefs of their chosen identity group.
[Kahan] describes this explanation through the cultural cognition thesis. Individuals will perceive risks that align with the cultural values held by their identity groups. Also known as motivated reasoning, this tendency to selectively assess evidence to conform to a motivated goal may not always align with accuracy.
Image Source: Dmitry Ageev
A glimmer of positivity
The many findings surrounding this topic seem to cast a negative atmosphere in this science communication dilemma. However, it should be noted that many of the same studies also compared responses to non-controversial science topics such as the existence of dinosaurs, nanotechnology, size of electrons, and photosynthesis. Despite differences in cultural groups and political affiliations, subjects appeared to align well with the science consensus when it comes to these unpolarized science topics. Kahan reassuringly asserts that the disconnect between the science community and the public is not a norm. These “pathological” situations only occur with strongly polarized science issues that segment the public across different beliefs and identities.
Science communication is a growing field and further research on this dilemma will better prepare scientists and researchers how to address, present, and communicate such controversial issues. For now, the science community must be vigilant and cognizant of how their audience may interpret and skew empirical results and findings to support their end goal. This is especially true for a public with a huge diversity of cultural and political backgrounds, who are entitled to their own beliefs and opinions.
Featured Image Source: wokandapix – pixabay.com
