Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Measuring and Understanding Public Opinion on Human Evolution A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences by Misook Gwon, M.A. Political Science, University of Cincinnati December 2012 Committee Chair: Stephen T. Mockabee, PhD ABSTRACT The theory of evolution has long generated controversy in American society, but Americans‘ attitudes about human evolution are often neglected in studies of ―culture wars‖ and the nature of mass belief systems more generally (Berkman and Plutzer 2010; Freeland and Houston 2009). Gallup and other survey organizations have polled about evolution, but offered limited response categories that mask complexity in public opinion (Bishop 2006; Moore 2008). The main problems concerning the leading survey questions about evolution are: first, questions measure only a single dimension, thus they ignore the potential for multidimensionality in people‘s attitudes. Second, depending on question wording and response options, the results of public opinion surveys vary by polling groups. This is an example of measurement error which misleads the interpretation and impression of American public opinion on the origin of humankind. A number of studies have analyzed Americans‘ beliefs about evolution and hypothesized about the influential effects of several factors (Deckman 2002; Mazur 2005; Mooney 2005; Miller et al. 2006; Newport 2006; Forrest 2007; Nisbet and Goidel 2007; Scott 2009). However, there remains a lack of complete understanding of what Americans know and believe about human evolution. Given the salience of this issue and the significant influence of public opinion on policy-making in America (Page and Shapiro 1992; Stimson 2004; Newport 2004), the measurement error and explanation of polling results on controversial issues related to this topic are in need of clarification. In this study, I address these deficiencies with analyses of data from a 2008 national survey by Harris Interactive (n= 4,626) that included numerous measures of factual knowledge and beliefs about evolution. The items offer more nuanced response options than the standard three-category question asked for decades by the Gallup poll. The Harris survey also had multiple measures of religiosity and the Right-Wing-Authoritarianism personality scale. Using this uniquely rich data set I develop a model of the nature and organization of these various attitude structures. Data analyses on explanation of public acceptance or rejection of evolution indicate that the Right-wing-authoritarianism and religious factors including beliefs in God‘s existence, views of the Bible, frequency of church attendance, and Evangelical Protestant affiliation are significant predictors across all measures. Scientific literacy, genetic science knowledge and familiarity, in general, are another contributor to prediction of public attitudes toward evolution. On measurement validity, consistency of measurement and responses are examined. The results from data analyses reveal the effect of question wording form and context is at play. In addition, public beliefs and knowledge about evolution are not consistent, rather contradictory, and are susceptible to framing effects. As scholars of public opinion warn, we should avoid the referendum view of polls on controversial issues (Schuman 2008; Moore 2008; Bishop 2005). Findings from this research lead to two key conclusions. First, great caution should be taken interpreting poll results on human evolution. Second, for better understanding of public opinion on this issue, a modified standard question should replace the current question. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS During my time in graduate school, I have received support and encouragement from a great number of individuals. Thank all of you who helped me throughout these past years as I tried to juggle raising children, working, and completing my dissertation. I would like to thank the staff and faculty in the Department of Political Science. In particular, I would first like to thank my dissertation committee for all their help to improve the overall quality of my work. My chairperson, Stephen Mockabee, has been a mentor, colleague, and friend. I would like to thank him for his generous support and extreme patience during numerous obstacles in completing this project. His enthusiasm in research and teaching, as well as his willingness to help students, has motivated me to pursue a career in political science. I am also grateful to Barbara Bardes for her support in numerous ways throughout my graduate studies. Without her encouragement and inspiration, this project would not have been accomplished. Additionally, I would like to thank Andrew Lewis for his insightful feedback on this research. Finally, special thanks to George Bishop for his timely guidance on various aspects of this project. I would like to extend my gratitude to Randy Thomas for generously providing the Harris survey data for my dissertation research. I would like to thank my fellow doctoral students for their support, feedback, and friendship. For all the sharing of time, knowledge, and insight in class and in preparing for comprehensive exams, I thank Ashley Kanotz, Rike Rothenstein, Chad Kinsella, and Jason Wood. I also thank Brad Nestheide and Jenn Dye for proofreading, commenting, and providing feedback on my early manuscript. Lastly, I am especially thankful to Nate Ramsey and Dan Birdsong for their longtime friendship, intellectual stimulation, and endless support. I am grateful to Dan Birdsong for sharing his time and insightful ideas during graduate school. Nate Ramsey has been an ideal research partner who constantly provided thought-provoking ideas and research opportunities. Next, I would also like to thank all the staff at the Institute for Policy Research - Eric Rademacher, Kim Downing, Chuck Hulen, Richard DePrato and others - for giving me a chance to develop my research skills. I am especially grateful to Eric Rademacher for sharing valuable research skills and teaching me to set a high research standard. My special thanks to the staff at the UC Women‘s Center. I am thankful to Barb Rinto, Amy Howton, Ann Brown, Kim Fulbright, and Brandy Turnbow for all their encouragement, insights, and reminding me to maintain balance between work and life. To all of my family, especially my parents and in-laws, I deeply appreciate your unconditional love and support throughout my life. To my late father, who has been in my heart along this long journey, it was your strong faith in me made this possible. I am also grateful to my brother-in-law, Euisuk Park, for introducing me to graduate school, and for constantly providing encouragement and guidance early in my graduate studies. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Young, for his complete support and unwavering love. Without him, my soul mate, I could not dream of this long journey. And just as he has provided me with quiet patience and unending encouragement, I will repay and support him in achieving his dream. Lastly, to my beautiful sons, Yun and Yul, thank you for giving me a push every day to finish ―mommy‘s homework.‖ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America 1 Chapter 2: Culture Wars and Human Evolution 28 Chapter 3: Validity of Measurement 46 Chapter 4: Social, Religious, and Psychological Roots of Public Attitudes toward Human Origin 72 Chapter 5: Conclusion 130 Bibliography 137 Appendix A 159 Appendix B 161 Appendix C 162 Appendix D 166 v LIST OF TABLES/FIGURES Figure 1: Acceptance or Rejection of Evolution in 34 Countries, 2005 9 Table 3-1: Trends in Beliefs About Human Evolution 52 Figure 3-1: Trends in Americans' Knowledge about Human Origins 54 Figure 3-2: Gallup Poll Trends in Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design 56 Figure 3-3: Trends in Americans' Belief in God 59 Table 3-2: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the Harris Five views 60 Table 3-3: Cross tabulation Results for the GSS question by the Harris Five views 61 Table 3-4: Cross tabulation Results for the Modified Gallup by the GSS question 62 Table 3-5: Cluster Membership of variables 65 Figure 3-4: Dendrogram of Cluster Analysis Result 66 Table 3-6: Distribution Consistent Believers of Each Explanation of Human Origins in the Harris Five Views 68 Table 3-7: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the GSS question 69 Table 3-8: Cross tabulation Results for Consistent Believers by the Modified Gallup question 70 Table 4-1: Distribution of the Modified Gallup Evolution Question 106 Table 4-2: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―None of these comes close to my beliefs‖ 108 Table 4-3: Demographic Summary: Gallup ―Not at all sure‖ 109 Table 4-4: Multi-nominal Logistic Regression Results For the Modified Gallup question 112 vi Table 4-5A: Distribution of the GSS Evolution Question 116 Table 4-5B: Findings from the GSS Evolution Question Cross-tabulation Results 118 Table 4-6: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution believer in the GSS evolution question 119 Table 4-7: Demographic Summary: Natural Evolution Denier in the GSS evolution question 120 Table 4-8A: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for The GSS evolution and the Modified Gallup evolution 121 Table 4-8B: Changes in Predicted Probability of Endorsing Selected View by Demographics, Religious, Science, and Psychological Factors 122 Table 4-9: Distributions of Five human origins views in Harris Interactive 2008 survey 124 Table 4-10: Models of Attitudes about Human Origins for Harris Five World Views 126 vii Chapter 1: Evolution in Scientific and Religious America “The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up‖ (Kentucky Rep. Ben Waide, quoted in the Lexington Herald-Leader, August 14, 2012) ―To see the integral role of evolution in biomedical research, consider Nobel Prizes, a good indicator of the most important breakthroughs in biology.