A Group Processes Approach to Antiscience Beliefs And
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GPI0010.1177/13684302211009708Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsRutjens et al. 1009708research-article2021 G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Introduction R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2021, Vol. 24(4) 513–517 A group processes approach to © The Author(s) 2021 antiscience beliefs and endorsement of Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions “alternative facts” https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211009708DOI: 10.1177/13684302211009708 journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi Bastiaan T. Rutjens,1 Sander van der Linden,2 Romy van der Lee3 and Natalia Zarzeczna1 Abstract The global spread of antiscience beliefs, misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories is posing a threat to the well-being of individuals and societies worldwide. Accordingly, research on why people increasingly doubt science and endorse “alternative facts” is flourishing. Much of this work has focused on identifying cognitive biases and individual differences. Importantly, however, the reasons that lead people to question mainstream scientific findings and share misinformation are also inherently tied to social processes that emerge out of divisive commitments to group identities and worldviews. In this special issue, we focus on the important and thus far neglected role of group processes in motivating science skepticism. The articles that feature in this special issue cover three core areas: the group-based roots of antiscience attitudes; the intergroup dynamics between science and conspiratorial thinking; and finally, insights about science denial related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across all articles, we highlight the role of worldviews, identities, norms, religion, and other inter- and intragroup processes that shape antiscientific attitudes. We hope that this collection will inspire future research endeavors that take a group processes approach to the social psychological study of science skepticism. Keywords science rejection, antiscience beliefs, misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories, ideology, COVID-19 Paper received 25 March 2021; revised version accepted 25 March 2021. We started planning this special issue on antisci- 1University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands ence beliefs and endorsement of “alternative 2University of Cambridge, UK facts” in the summer of 2019. In the call for this 3VU Amsterdam, the Netherlands issue we wrote that “Antiscience beliefs are Corresponding author: growing but surprisingly little is known about Bastiaan T. Rutjens, Department of Psychology, University what makes people skeptical about science.” A of Amsterdam, 1012 WX Amsterdam, 1012, Netherlands. little over half a year later, it is no exaggeration to Email: [email protected] 514 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 24(4) say that a whole new dimension has been added intergroup context of people’s lives. The goal of to this notion. As submissions started rushing in, this special issue therefore is to garner new so did the COVID-19 pandemic. And so, we insights into the intra- and intergroup dimen- issued a slightly extended call for submissions sions of science rejection, conspiracy theories which now included an explicit request for work related to science, the endorsement of “alterna- investigating COVID-19-related attitudes and tive facts,” and the spread of misinformation, behaviors in the context of science beliefs, (alter- including COVID-19-related attitudes and native) facts, and (mis)information. The global behaviors. We have received many submissions COVID-19 pandemic makes it abundantly clear of excellent quality, of which nine are included how important it is to increase our understand- in this special issue. Five additional submissions ing of the psychological underpinnings of sci- that were relevant to the topic of the issue, but ence rejection and susceptibility to—and could not be accommodated due to length con- endorsement of—misinformation. That being straints, will be published in the next issue of the said, science rejection is a problem that extends journal and will be clearly marked as such. The far and wide beyond COVID-19. Antiscience nine submissions in this volume can broadly be beliefs and the endorsement of misinformation grouped in three overarching categories. The can have catastrophic effects on public health, first category of articles covers work on general the economy, and the environment (see Rutjens antiscience attitudes. The research described in et al., 2021; van Bavel et al., 2020; World Health these articles explores the role of ideology and Organization [WHO], 2019). To illustrate, con- identity in shaping negative attitudes towards sci- sider climate change and vaccine hesitancy. The ence and science rejection. The second category potentially disastrous effects of human carbon of articles focuses on the relation between dioxide emissions on global warming stem from antiscience beliefs and conspiracy thinking, anything ranging from an underestimation of the including the sharing of fake news that involves problem to the blatant denial of climate change techniques commonly used in science denial, (Dunlap, 2013; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, such as character assassination. The third set of 2016). Recently, measles outbreaks have occurred articles relates evaluations of science to the across the globe, and these can arguably be par- COVID-19 pandemic, scrutinizing the role that tially blamed on public skepticism about vaccina- religion, ideology, and norm adherence play in tion (Wenner Moyer, 2018). In that sense, the shaping the relation between science beliefs and current COVID-19 pandemic is just another attitudes and behaviors pertaining to the topic of contention to be added to the list of pandemic. topics on which public opinion is sharply divided (Dryhurst et al., 2020). Surveying work on the psychology of science rejection, it is clear that General Science Attitudes the individual differences approach taken by What are some of the individual difference varia- researchers has fostered numerous fruitful bles that shape antiscience beliefs, and what is the insights (Hornsey, 2020; Rutjens et al., 2018). For intergroup context within which these processes example, climate change denial is associated with take place? In the opening paper of this special political conservatism, while vaccination rejec- issue, Azevedo and Jost (2021) provide important tion—traditionally more common among the theoretical and empirical advances on the ideologi- religious orthodox—is increasingly associated cal basis of antiscientific attitudes. In large national with a spiritual worldview rather than with con- U.S. samples, they evaluate the relative importance servatism (Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; of partisanship, symbolic and operational forms Rutjens et al., 2018, in press). At the same time, of political ideology, social dominance orientation such personal beliefs are neither formed nor sus- (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and tained in isolation from the wider group and general system justification (GSJ). Using robust Rutjens et al. 515 multiverse analyses, the authors found that con- spectrum. Among nationally representative trolling for all other factors, conservatism (assessed samples of North Americans, the authors find via operational ideology) was consistently amongst that endorsement of such beliefs is indeed pre- the most important predictors of not only denial dicted by ideological extremity, but only when of climate science, but also of general skepticism these beliefs are imbued with partisan or ideo- about science (vs. faith) and trust in ordinary peo- logical content. Next, Fong et al., (2021) analyze ple over experts. These findings are corroborated the intergroup dynamics between popular sci- by Kerr and Wilson (2021) who show that SDO entists, conspiracy theorists, and their followers and RWA form a common origin to the various on social media. Specifically, the authors evalu- effects of ideology on distrust of science in the US ated linguistic patterns in over 160,000 tweets and New Zealand. Using structural equation mod- and found that, relative to that used by scien- elling, the authors demonstrate that individuals tists, the language of the top conspiracy theo- who hold stronger authoritarian and social inequal- rists and their followers on Twitter focused on ity views find scientists less credible. In turn, such more negative emotions such as anger; out- perception of scientists predicts science rejection group language; and themes focused on death, across many science domains, including denial of religion, and power. These results uncover evolution, climate change, and safety of vaccina- important psycholinguistic markers of conspir- tion, GM food, and water fluoridation. Besides atorial discourse online. Next, in two studies, political ideology, identity concerns also play a role. McPhetres et al. (2021) examine why partisans Salvatore and Morton (2021) find that evaluations might share fake news. One explanation is of science are based on whether the evidence rooted in a preference for “character assassina- affirms or disaffirms people’s personal identities. tion” whereby instead of talking about the sci- The authors experimentally manipulated whether ence, evidence, or a specific policy, a person’s unfamiliar (and ostensibly real) scientific findings character is deprecated by portraying them in a about femininity and masculinity were consistent bad light. Results revealed that, among parti- with participants’ views about their own gender sans, character-focused