Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Political and psychological antecedents to science denialism

Kathryn Quissell, PhD, MPH, MSc Catherine Strawley, MPH Maslyn Pessner

Key words: Denialism, evidence, policy, governance

Introduction Science denialism is a social and political force with significant implications for the world’s ability to govern some of the most pressing global problems. Denialism has contributed to massive failures in managing the COVID-19 pandemic, hundreds of thousands of lives lost to HIV/AIDS, and barriers to domestic climate change mitigation policies and the negotiation of global treaties and agreements. Political forces clearly shape the willingness of individuals to consider, use, or reject scientific data. Using the U.S. as an example, we see many concerning population trends which erode or lessen compliance with evidence-based policymaking. Distrust of expertise and of government are at an all-time high (Gauchet 2012; Motta 2017). Anti-intellectualism, generally defined as “a resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent it” has become more pronounced due to the rise of right-wing populism, the political dominance of libertarian ideology, and the cultural valorization of the self-made man (Hofstadter 1963), all conditions exacerbated under the Trump administration. Clearer ideological sorting into political parties, reified political identities, intensifying ingroup vs. outgroup dynamics between parties, and structural incentives favoring political wins over governing are increasingly polarizing politicians and the American electorate (Klein 2020). These dynamics are coinciding with the most significant pandemic in over one hundred years and have contributed to the rejection of public health evidence and the disastrous U.S. policy response to COVID- 19. Additionally, these forces have led to persistent failures in addressing global climate change, another crucial science-backed policy issue with significant human consequences. We know much about the political challenges in the U.S. However, the literatures on these political dynamics of concern, and work in social psychology on science denialism, conspiracy beliefs, and how and why people engage differently with evidence, still require synthesis and clarification. The first step in this project is to synthesize different explanations for the misuse of evidence, denialism, and conspiracy theories. This paper uses the qualitative methods of literature synthesis, process tracing, and within and between case comparisons to examine the micro and macro-level factors driving denialism

1 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

around HIV/AIDS, COVID-19, and climate change. We first present individual case studies on these policy areas and then conclude with a synthesis of key drivers and gaps in understanding.

Cases Studies

AIDS Denialism Background on HIV/AIDS Denialism Pandemics have always fostered denialism and conspiracy theories (Uscinski and Parent 2014). As an emerging, novel, infectious disease, it should not have been surprising the HIV/AIDS crisis lent itself to alternative explanations. However, the strength of these beliefs among leaders in South Africa, the country with the largest number of people living with HIV/AIDS, was bewildering. Several individuals in South Africa introduced President Thabo Mbeki and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang to denialist ideas, and these ideas resonated – to such an extent that President Mbeki invited several of the key figures in the denialist network to join his Presidential Panel on HIV/AIDS. These ideas persisted in shaping health policy in the country until President Mbeki resigned, and as of 2012, there were still South Africans expressing support for denialist beliefs. What was it about AIDS denialism, and the network peddling denialist claims, that led high-level government officials to bypass the scientific consensus on HIV/AIDS while hundreds of thousands of South Africans contracted HIV and died of AIDS? Additionally, as AIDS denialism is broader than just South Africa, what political macro-level factors and individual micro-level factors contribute to AIDS denialist beliefs? Examining the origin and development of HIV/AIDS denialism, characteristics of the denialist network help to explain their influence, such as leaders with scientific credentials and supportive journalists who all presented these ideas as legitimate. Additionally, there are several key narratives undergirding the denialist movement, and the resonance of each theory varies by place and by person, creating diverse entry-ways into denialism. This noticeable trend points to the importance of the narratives, and to how characteristics of individuals and the broader political environment shape which narratives are believed. While all the main AIDS denialist theories have been demonstrated as scientifically false over time, and they all appear ludicrous to HIV/AIDS scientists and clinicians, each contains a small kernel of plausibility exploited by denialist leaders. To understand how denialism began and spread, it is important to examine denialist narratives for what norms and ideas they contain, how they resonate with particular people, and how these key actors and other political factors facilitated their diffusion.

2 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

The research of Nicoli Nattrass and Seth Kalichman captures much of the information available on AIDS denialism. Their work describes the key actors, narratives, and health impacts. As they identified, underlying AIDS denialism are several alternative claims. The primary denialist narrative is the argument that a virus, identified and named HIV, does not cause AIDS. This argument takes advantage of early uncertainties in AIDS research and continues to promote and exploit them even after significant scientific evidence demonstrating the causal link between HIV infection, immune system damage, and the development of AIDS (Kalichman 2009). Additionally, the other component of this narrative which makes it believable, or appealing, are the other explanations offered for the cause of AIDS. Many denialist leaders link AIDS to broader factors such as poverty, malnutrition, environmental toxicity, and other systemic influences which are detrimental to immune systems (Nattrass 2012). Social determinants do have an impact on vulnerability to HIV infection as well as life expectancy and overall health for people living with HIV/AIDS, but they are not necessary or sufficient causes of AIDS. An additional argument under this narrative is that antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) themselves are toxic and cause AIDS. Many followers of denialism accept both pieces of this narrative, but some favor one of the causal stories. The second denialist claim is the conspiracy theory that AIDS is man-made. The culprit in this narrative varies, but one of the dominant stories is that AIDS was created in a U.S. lab as a bioweapon or means of genocidal warfare specifically targeting Africans and/or Black Americans (Nattrass 2012). Interestingly, this narrative has been traced back to a deliberate East German and Soviet Union misinformation campaign which originated and spread this claim (Nattrass 2012, pg. 27). This conspiracy theory contains several underlying myths. The first myth is that HIV/AIDS did not originate naturally as a zoonotic infection in Africa. Instead, scientists supposedly developed it in a lab. The second related myth is that this disease was then purposefully introduced into vulnerable populations targeted for racist and genocidal purposes. Stories surrounding how it was introduced vary, but the dominant one in Africa is through contaminated vaccines, such as polio-eradication programs (Kalichman 2009). These alternative claims were either created or supported by individual scientists with legitimate scientific credentials (although none did HIV/AIDS research), proliferated through supportive journalists and media outlets, promoted by some politicians and other famous people, and fostered through online denialist communities. Several leading denialists were scientists at reputable institutions. One of the central figures, Peter Duesberg, was a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and he was a well-respected cancer researcher recognized for his work in studying the genetic basis of cancer and cancer-related retroviruses. For this work, he was inducted into the prestigious National

3 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Academy of Sciences before he began questioning HIV/AIDS knowledge (Kalichman 2009). While he was a central spokesperson for denialism, he never did HIV/AIDS research. Duesberg was one of the key denialists on Mbeki’s Presidential Panel. Other denialists, such as the “Perth Group” in Australia, were physicians, pathologists, and biophysicists – all with medical and scientific training but none of whom worked specifically in HIV/AIDS or emerging infectious diseases (Kalichman 2009). Finally, many other key denialists were members of the homeopathic/natural remedies community, who advocated for, and sold, alternative cures such as vitamins and supplements. Two of these individuals, Roberto Giraldo and David Rasnick were also on Mbeki’s Presidential Panel, while others such as German physician Matthias Rath carried out illegal clinical trials of herbal remedies and sold vitamins throughout South Africa (Kalichman 2009). Additionally, denialist ideas were spread through the news media with journalists such as Celia Farber at Harper’s promoting the cause (Nattrass 2012). Denialist communities sprung up online, with many offering alternative treatments and support for people living with HIV/AIDS. And several famous people, including the lead singer of the band Foo Fighters and Louis Farrakahan, the head of the Nation of Islam in the U.S., became visible advocates for denialism (Nattrass 2012). Lastly, there were also more fringe undercurrents to denialism that were still picked up and embraced. William Cooper’s writings, an American right-wing, racist, libertarian, conspiracy theorist, influenced Health Minister Tshabalala-Msimang and were circulated in African American communities in the U.S. (Nattrass 2012). The public health impact of denialism has been more robustly assessed in South Africa than in the U.S. with severe, negative findings. Several studies estimated the number of new infections and deaths over the Mbeki presidency that could have been prevented if the whole country had followed best-practice policy recommendations, such as those of the WHO, UNAIDS, and the Western Cape Province in South Africa. Chigwedere et al. (2008) estimated that more than 330,000 lives were lost because of lack of access to ARVs. In the U.S., these beliefs have not been harmless. Individuals with denialist beliefs reported they were less likely to use condoms, get tested for HIV, or otherwise engage in preventative behaviors, and they are also less likely to initiate or remain adherent to treatment (Bogart and Thorburn 2005; Bogart et. al 2010; Ross et al. 2006). While AIDS denialism is now seemingly marginalized in the U.S. and South Africa, there are other indicators of rising denialism elsewhere. Russia has one of the worst HIV/AIDS epidemics in the world, and its infection rate is rising (UNAIDS). There have been increasing reports of AIDS-denialism related deaths, and the government is considering legislation to make the spread of HIV/AIDS misinformation illegal (Holt 2019). Historically, Russian officials have taken denialist stances such as claiming there is no

4 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

HIV/AIDS epidemic in Russia. But the other denialist narratives are present in the country and increasingly found in online communities. AIDS denialism has not disappeared, and it continues to put people’s lives and health at risk. Breaking down the drivers of AIDS denialism could help to better address it, and to better understand other forms of denialism.

Drivers of HIV/AIDS Denialism in South Africa and the U.S. Research on AIDS denialism has largely focused on South Africa and the U.S., with an emphasis on the key actors in the denialist movement and specific populations within these countries who hold denialist beliefs. Additionally, in the case of South Africa, there has been much attention paid to examining the denialism of President Thabo Mbeki and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. Fewer studies have examined psychological antecedents, but some studies have inferred emotional drivers of AIDS denialism through qualitative work, as well as identifying traits of key denialist individuals and the contextual factors aiding the spread of denialist ideas. Beginning with AIDS denialism in South Africa, contextual and political factors dominate explanations. Following decades of conflict against the Apartheid regime, the transition of power to the African National Congress (ANC) in the early 1990’s occurred shortly after HIV/AIDS related illness was recognized in the country. The Apartheid era in South Africa bred significant distrust in National Party political leaders, who had used forms of bioterrorism against the liberation movement, as well as distrust of foreigners for their colonial involvement and delayed support for a democratic South Africa. Distrust, hope, and the need to aggressively address the racial inequities of the system, while also maintaining a peaceful transition, shaped the actions of policy makers. Under Nelson Mandela’s presidency, HIV/AIDS was largely ignored (Quissell 2017). In later interviews with Mandela, he admitted to having other priorities and significant discomfort in talking about a sexually transmitted infection. The stigma of the condition contributed to early neglect. Neglect can be seen as a form of passive denialism, where the severity of a problem is ignored. Mandela never claimed HIV/AIDS to be a non-issue, and he did not question or discredit the evolving science, but he also did not devote sufficient policy attention or resources to addressing the problem. Under the next administration of Thabo Mbeki, the confluence of distrust, stigma, racial inequity, and growing sense of fear and urgency surrounding AIDS created conditions for Mbeki’s denialism. President Thabo Mbeki’s denialism was (and potentially still is) active denial of the growing scientific consensus. A journalist, Anita Allen, introduced him to denialist ideas and these explanations gained his immediate interest (Nattrass 2012). Mbeki was often described as one of the intellectual

5 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

leaders within the ANC, with a background in economics. He was well educated, intelligent, and often willing to take a stand against prevailing beliefs and priorities to do what he thought was right - such as encouraging the ANC away from a more state-based economic system to a market-based economy (Natrass 2012). These characteristics do not necessarily lead to denialism, as many of his other stances relied heavily on the evidence-base, including his responses to other health crises such as TB (Quissell 2017). However, there were clearly aspects of denialist arguments which appealed to Mbeki. The “dissident” discourse of how AIDS denialists rightfully questioned dominant orthodoxies clearly had an appeal. Additionally, the story offered in denialism created a strong counter-narrative to the broader global discourse on Africa as the birthplace of AIDS, and as being driven by African sexual behavior, in particular, Black male promiscuity. The racist currents in the global narrative offended Mbeki, demonstrated in several speeches he gave and in conversations he had with his biographer (Quissell 2017). The global narrative did not align with Mbeki’s interest in advancing Black African leadership in his country and a broader pan-African Renaissance of culture, innovation, and development. His belief in the importance of an African Renaissance had some nationalist tendencies, as demonstrated in his prioritization of African solutions such as in the Virodene debacle, when he advocated for the use of a highly toxic drug produced in South Africa that the broader scientific community soundly rejected. The legal fight against Pharma for their interference in the implementation of South Africa’s updated Medicine’s Act (cite Kennedy school case), combined with pre-existing suspicions around Pharma’s profit motives, history of unethical practices in clinical trials, and alliance with Northern government interests, provided additional context for the denialist rejection of ARVs. The denialist claims that ARVs were toxic, and that Pharma could not be trusted, also resonated with President Mbeki. Altogether, denialist claims offered Mbeki a means of rejecting the dominant global narrative on the origin, the cause, and the treatment for AIDS, in favor of a narrative better suited his political needs, one that also deflected HIV/AIDS stigma to maintain positive group esteem for Black African men. Instead of Africa as the birthplace of AIDS, the poverty created through colonialism was to blame. Instead of a virus, it was malnutrition, other infectious diseases, and the negative health impacts of poverty which compromised immune systems. Instead of pills created and manufactured in the global North, and sold at monopoly prices, vitamins, herbal supplements, nutritional interventions, treating other infectious disease, and developing African-led solutions were the answer. To accept otherwise would be to accept the role of sexual behavior in driving the epidemic, and the racist connotations embedded in many of the key public health narratives.

6 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Attacks against President Mbeki and Minister Tshabalala-Msimang only appear to have further entrenched their positions (Quissell 2017). However, these leaders were strongly contested through the activism of the South African Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), one of the strongest HIV/AIDS social movement organizations in the world. Mbeki and Tshabalala-Msimang were marginalized within the ANC. Despite having some followers, denialism was not common throughout the political party. Mbeki was eventually asked to stop talking about AIDS, and when he was removed from office (for other reasons), all subsequent leadership has supported the scientific-consensus view (Quissell 2017). But there has been a longer lasting and broader impact of denialism on popular beliefs. Denialist views have always been in the minority in South Africa, but as of surveys conducted between 2010 and 2012, a non- trivial percentage of the population continued to express denialist sentiments (Hogg et al. 2017; Grebe and Nattrass 2012). In a sample of young adults in Cape Town, South Africa, more than 20% of Black men in the sample agreed with statements that AIDS was invented to kill Black people, AIDS was created by scientists in America, and AIDS was deliberately created by humans (Grebe and Nattrass 2012; Nattrass 2012, pg. 45). Overall, Black respondents were significantly more likely to agree with these statements than white or mixed-race respondents, and Black men were about twice as likely as Black women to agree. Besides gender and race, this study also found financial instability, psychological distress, traditional cultural beliefs surrounding gender, greater belief in witchcraft, expressed support for President Mbeki, greater perceived social distance between Blacks and whites, and no knowledge of TAC as associated with denialist beliefs. (Nattrass 2012, pg. 51) Greater education and being a member of a religious organization reduced the likelihood of agreeing with denialist beliefs (Nattrass 2012, pg. 51). Besides general demographic characteristics and measures of psychological distress, there has been limited analysis of individual-level factors influencing AIDS denialism in population surveys. This is an important gap as it would be useful for public health programming and policy to understand why certain individuals in a particular context, with the same contextual drivers of denialism, do or do not gravitate toward denialist ideas. Looking at the specific case of President Mbeki and some of the intermediating beliefs identified in Grebe and Nattrass’s survey data, we can hypothesize multiple other psychological traits or states that could be drivers of AIDS denialism. As in the case of Mbeki, people might be favorable to denialist narratives as a means of coping with the stigmatization of HIV/AIDS. People seeking psychological protection, or stigma avoidance, may be more vulnerable to denialist messages (Quissell 2017). Additionally, and related to stigma, is the threat posed to individual and group identities by HIV/AIDS. Individuals with greater paranoid ideation or suspicious thinking (Douglas 2017;

7 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Kalichman 2009) may be more likely to see malicious intent behind this threat, or it may magnify the identity threat they perceive. Those who have a weak internal locus of control, who feel particularly afraid, may exhibit agency panic (Nattrass 2012, pg. 48), shifting their locus of control externally, also exacerbating their perceived threat. The broader psychology literature shows that individuals who lack agency are often motivated by narratives that give them greater agency (Douglas 2017). Next, distrust appears to be a major intermediate driver of denialism. There are certain psychological traits that are also linked to trust. For example, in the moral foundations literature, individuals with stronger in-group loyalty are more likely to distrust out-groups (Haidt et al. 2009). Those who are stronger in respect for traditional authority and in purity-related morality are more likely to hold traditional cultural views, as the ones identified in Grebe and Nattrass’s work. These moral characteristics of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity are referred to as binding moral concerns. Perhaps individuals with greater binding morals are more prone to perceived threat and distrust, and therefore open to denialist narratives. Lastly, there is a body of scholarship showing traits related to level of comfort with uncertainty. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure are significantly less comfortable with uncertainty, and can move toward explanations giving them closure – which conspiracy theories often do (Douglas 2017). These factors are outlined all together in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Antecedents to AIDS Denialism in South Africa

Level 1: Level 2: Mediating or Level 3: Denialism Predispositions Moderating Beliefs Beliefs

Demographics South Africa Influence of organized denialist HIV is not the actors cause of AIDS Male Gender

Broader political Race Distrust of influences foreign influence Financial security Racial politics ARVs are toxic Level of education

Psychological Distrust of Colonialism Traits/States Individual Pharma characteristics Binding HIV did not morality originate in African Renaissance Africa Paranoid ideation/ suspicious thinking Medical Mistrust History of medical abuse and Pharma misdeeds Stigma avoidance AIDS is a genocidal Agency panic/ plot external locus of Perceived control status/identity threat Need for cognitive closure

Level 1: Level 2: Mediating or Level 3: Denialism Predispositions Moderating Beliefs Beliefs 8 Perceived Influence of HIV is not the status/identity Demographics organized denialist cause of AIDS threat actors Male Gender

United States Black Stigma Distrust of Race government Americans avoidance

Financial Broader political security influences Left-wing Level of ARVs are toxic environmentalism education Distrust of Cold War politics Psychological Pharma Traits/States

Culture wars Binding Individual morality characteristics Populism Paranoid ideation/ Medical suspicious thinking Mistrust Right-wing Lab theory History of medical abuse conservatism

Agency panic/ external locus of White Anti-intellectualism Racial politics control Americans

Distrust of Need for Science cognitive closure

AIDS is a Libertarianism genocidal plot Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Regarding mitigating factors, there are clear gender differences in the survey data. Women are much less likely to agree with AIDS denialism (Grebe and Nattrass 2012). However, there is not a good explanation present in the literature for this difference. Perhaps male gender is associated with some of the hypothesized psychological characteristics, or the influence of gender is mediated by a variable such as social support or social capital, of which men tend to have significantly less. For example, individuals with greater social support may feel less threatened by a condition such as HIV/AIDS and therefore not seek out alternative explanations. Social support could help explain why members of TAC (none of whom were denialists), and individuals in South Africa who know about TAC, are less likely to support denialist explanations. Social movements and support groups who are evidence-based, could mitigate denialism. Next, education and financial security appear to be mitigating factors in the South Africa. These factors could be related (greater education creating better job opportunities and better financial security), or they could represent slightly different phenomena. Education could lead to higher science literacy, which could have a mitigating influence on denialism. Financial security is related to socioeconomic status, and it also represents a cause of anxiety and stress, which could be linked with the psychological distress finding (Radnitz and Underwood 2017; Swami et al. 2016). There are clear emotional drivers of AIDS denialism, such as fear of infection, fear of stigmatization, stress and anxiety around health and social status, and uncertainty over outcomes. Emotional drivers are worth further investigation in how they link to psychological traits such as paranoia, agency panic, and the need for cognitive closure. These emotional states could point to means of intervention, through health care systems or specifically designed advocacy campaigns. In the U.S., AIDS denialism did not have high-level political support or much of a following among Americans – despite most of the leading denialist scientists, journalists, and advocates being American. It has remained a somewhat fringe movement, although like South Africa, those expressing support for denialist ideas are more likely to be Black, male, and lower income (Nattrass 2012). Bogart and Thorburn (2005) found 48% of Black Men in a random sample agreed that HIV is a man-made virus, while 30% agreed AIDS was produced in a government laboratory, and only around 20% agreed that HIV/AIDS was a form of genocide or that it was created by the U.S. government to control the Black population. Men were significantly more likely to hold these beliefs than women. In a different study of Black men who have sex with men (MSM), these beliefs were present, but less common (Quinn et al. 2018). About 35% of the sample agreed with the statement that HIV is man-made, 14% agreed it was produced in a government laboratory, 12% agreed it was a form of genocide against Blacks, and 9% agreed it was created by the government to control the Black population. This study was a non-random,

9 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

non-representative population, and it was conducted between 2012 and 2014, so at a slightly later time than the other studies. However, there have been so few studies of AIDS denialism among the broader population, and in particular target groups, that it is worth considering as suggestive of possible trends. MSM appear to be less likely to support denialism than heterosexual men in the U.S., but this finding is nowhere near conclusive. Many gay rights organizations have been active supporters of evidence-based policies, besides one chapter of ACTUP in San Francisco (Kalichman 2009), which suggests a similar mitigating influence to TAC in South Africa. These studies did not look at other psychological factors, such as distress or other underlying traits. We hypothesize that similar factors as were suggested in the South African case may affect denialism among Black Americans given histories of oppression and medical abuse. Interestingly, there have also been other constituencies supporting AIDS denialism in the U.S., including religious conservatives, libertarians, and leftist-environmentalists (Kalichman 2009). American denialism is infused with significant distrust of pharmaceutical companies, science, and government, with an undercurrent of libertarianism and anti-intellectualism that is not present in South Africa. Religious conservatives, those who are also more likely to support Creationism and contest what they perceive as scientific challenges to religious doctrine, have expressed support for AIDS denialism (Kalichman 2009). These individuals are more likely to hold strong binding moral concerns. Additionally, key actors in the denialist movement, such as William Cooper, express radical libertarian beliefs largely tied to their anti-government sentiments (Nattrass 2012). Lastly, many of the denialists from the homeopathic community were left-leaning environmentalists, who claimed their critique of ARV toxicity as comparable to their fight against environmental contamination and private sector greed (Kalichman 2009; Nattrass 2012). Their key target was pharmaceutical companies, and lack of appropriate government regulation. They also expressed many purity concerns about taking “unnatural” drugs, when naturally occurring vitamins and supplements could be used instead. A key factor in American political culture is the strong anti-government ethos of American libertarianism and the Republican Party. A relatively new line of scholarship in political science has hypothesized that anti-intellectualism, treated as a predisposition or personality trait, is one driver of these political trends (Merkley 2020; Motta 2018). Anti-intellectualism as a concept dates to Richard Hofstadter’s (1963) book on the topic, but it has not been used in many empirical investigations. There is no theoretical work yet outlining different aspects of anti-intellectualism for measurement purposes, and most of the few studies measuring anti-intellectualism use trust or confidence belief variables (which do not exactly capture the concept as anti-intellectualism should be an antecedent to trust or

10 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

distrust). However, these studies have pointed to some interesting findings. Among those high on an anti-intellectualism scale, presenting the scientific consensus on an issue is not persuasive, and can even backfire (Merkley 2020). Fact-check corrections or consensus cues are less effective among those with higher distrust of experts. Additionally, anti-intellectualism and the rejection of expert opinion is mediated by partisanship (Motta 2018). Partisan identity shapes ideological motivated reasoning, meaning, when people are presented with messages and messengers aligning with their partisan identity, they are more likely to accept expert consensus. If not, they are more likely to reject or

Level 1: Level 2: Mediating or Level 3: Denialism discredit experts and expert recommendations.Predispositions PolarizationModerating Be lieisfs exacerbating thisBeli eprocess.fs Lastly, populism can prime anti-intellectualism in individuals, particularly if the populist beliefs promoted

Demographics South Africa Influence of included experts in the elite class they disparage (Merkley o2020).rganized denial is t HIV is not the actors cause of AIDS Male Gender The U.S. case demonstrates some overlapping characteristics with the South Africa case, but it Broader political Race Distrust of influences foreign influence Financial also has several diverging pathwayssec ulearity ding to AIDS denialism. These factors are all laid out in Figure 2, Racial politics ARVs are toxic Level of combining the broader political influenceseducation with individual predispositions and beliefs. One of the key Psychological Distrust of Colonialism Traits/States Individual Pharma characteristics Binding demographic factors contributing to diverging pathways to AIDS denialism is race.HIV did not Black Americans have morality originate in African Renaissance Africa many similarities with South Africans,Paranoid idea tiwhileon/ white Americans’ denialist beliefs are mediated by anti- suspicious thinking Medical Mistrust History of medical abuse and Pharma intellectualismmisdeeds and political ideology.Stigma avoidance AIDS is a genocidal Agency panic/ plot external locus of Perceived control status/identity threat Need for Figure 2: Antecedents to AIDS Denialiscognitive closumre in the United States

Level 1: Level 2: Mediating or Level 3: Denialism Predispositions Moderating Beliefs Beliefs

Perceived Influence of HIV is not the status/identity Demographics organized denialist cause of AIDS threat actors Male Gender

United States Black Stigma Distrust of Race government Americans avoidance

Financial Broader political security influences Left-wing Level of ARVs are toxic environmentalism education Distrust of Cold War politics Psychological Pharma Traits/States

Culture wars Binding Individual morality characteristics Populism Paranoid ideation/ Medical suspicious thinking Mistrust Right-wing Lab theory History of medical abuse conservatism

Agency panic/ external locus of White Anti-intellectualism Racial politics control Americans

Distrust of Need for Science cognitive closure

AIDS is a Libertarianism genocidal plot

11 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Summary Across the South African and U.S. cases of AIDS denialism, several key trends are present. First, group and individual status threat, stigma avoidance, and mistrust born from experiences of oppression and abuse are several key mediating factors. However, most people in these demographic groups do not support denialist beliefs, indicating the importance of individual predispositions in interaction with these broader political forces. Second, what the key individual predispositions are, have not been examined thoroughly. We hypothesize multiple factors based on an inductive analysis of the AIDS denialism literature. Third, there are additional pathways to AIDS denialism in the U.S. that may overlap with constituencies who also express other forms of science denialism, as discussed in the next two cases of COVID-19 and climate change denialism. Lastly, the organized denialism community had a significant impact. Without its leadership, media support, and online community, this phenomenon would likely have not existed, or it would have remained on the fringes of society.

COVID-19 Denialism Background to COVID-19 Denialism in the United States For the first time in a century, the entire world was shaken by a pandemic of massive scale with the spread of the 2019 coronavirus disease. Alongside the rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus came rapid dissemination of false information in the U.S., including denialist beliefs regarding our scientific understanding of the virus and how it spreads, as well as conspiracy theories surrounding its spread. Such denialist beliefs include 1) that COVID-19 is a hoax, 2) that COVID-19 is no more serious than the flu, making public health interventions unjustified, 3) that social distancing, mask-wearing, and other preventive measures are ineffective, and 4) that COVID-19 was intentionally spread as a bioweapon. With over 33.4 million cases, as of June 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has taken the lives of more than 600,000 Americans. Yet, a multitude of false beliefs surrounding COVID-19 affect people’s willingness to take preventive action to protect those at risk in their communities. In this case study, we aim to provide an explanation of the drivers of COVID-19 denialist beliefs in hopes that this analysis may highlight opportunities for intervention. We find it necessary first to establish benchmarks of scientific consensus regarding the causes and severity of COVID-19, and the effectiveness of preventive measures implemented by public health authorities. The existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus on a molecular level has been confirmed by a multitude of studies, and scientists have been able to model the virus’ structure, affirming that the virus is real

12 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

(Platto et al. 2020). Although there is still some uncertainty about the virus’ true origins, as of Fall 2020, scientists generally agreed that it originated in horseshoe bats, noting that the group of viruses from which SARS-CoV-2 emerged has been present in this species for a while (Burki 2020). Given that the virus is believed to have initially emerged in humans in Wuhan, China, where there are no horseshoe bats, scientists believe there was an additional intermediary carrier involved, possibly the Pangolin. Scientists had also considered the possibility that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was constructed within the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which does work with coronaviruses, but analyses of viral genomes suggest that the SARS-CoV-2 virus and coronaviruses within the Wuhan Virology Institute have a common ancestor, but not that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was derived from other coronaviruses within the lab. However, at this point, the possibility of a lab leak has not been ruled out, although there is still no substantial evidence to support this claim (Maxmen & Mallapaty 2021). Importantly, lack of acceptance of COVID-19 related science has led to significant noncompliance, which has been a contributing factor to high case and death counts in the United States. Public health recommendations to wear masks in public settings has been one such flashpoint, with state and local governments taking a range of stances for or against mask wearing. However, several studies have assessed the effectiveness of mask-wearing to settle this debate. Rader et al. (2020) used a multivariate logistic regression model to evaluate the effect of self-reported mask wearing and social distancing in communities on transmission control. The researchers found that widespread masking and social distancing in communities significantly increased the odds of control over viral transmission. We find that acceptance of COVID-19 related science-denialism beliefs has multifaceted causes; no one individual characteristic or influencing factor is solely responsible for such belief. We see the cause of COVID-19 denialism as a web of interacting component causes, including broader political influences, individual factors, and a variety of intermediary factors along the pathway that leads a person to science denialism. Please see Figure 3, which models the pathways through which an individual may come to believe in COVID-19 related statements that are not supported by peer- reviewed scientific evidence, representing this process with three differentiated levels of factors and characteristics. Importantly, those who believe COVID-19 conspiracies are not as likely to follow guidance for preventive measures such as wearing a mask and social distancing.

13 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Figure 3: Antecedents to COVID-19 Denialism in the U.S.

Broader Political and Social Influences Broader political and social influences set the stage to allow for the development and dissemination of denialist beliefs in the U.S. One such influencing characteristic is populism. Populism is a worldview that pits average citizens against “the elite” and encapsulates society-level trends toward anti-intellectualism, such as distrust of experts (Stecula & Pickup 2021). A new wave of right-wing populism arose in the U.S. with the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 (Speed & Mannon 2020). Even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump used populist appeals to legitimize his proposed reforms to the Affordable Care Act (which was said to save $337 billion but would drastically increase the number of uninsured), focusing his rationale on the need to take power away from a corrupt elite, government overreach, and supposed government tendencies toward socialism. Populism is correlated with conspiracy beliefs relating to COVID-19, separate from an individual’s political affiliation. However, the size of the effect of populist beliefs varies based upon the political leaning of media that is consumed. Conservative media consumption tends to be a stronger predictor of conspiracy belief among those high in populism than those low in populism. An additional factor that contributed to the widespread acceptance of denialist beliefs in the U.S. relating to the COVID-19 pandemic is the hyper-polarized political landscape, which is further exacerbated by news and social media. It is difficult to expect individuals to trust in COVID-19 science

14 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

when not all government officials are on the same page, especially when there are significant differences in perceived severity of the pandemic along party lines. According to a study by a group of Harvard researchers, 29% of survey respondents believe that the threat of the COVID-19 pandemic was blown out of proportion for the purpose of damaging President Trump’s reputation (Uscinski et al. 2020). They also found that cues from elites can foster the development of conspiracies, giving them an environment within which to flourish despite contrary scientific evidence. In a clear demonstration of the existing intergroup conflict, when the pandemic was coming into full-swing, Trump referred to COVID-19 as merely the Democrats’ “new hoax” and noted it was no worse than the flu. This dismissal of COVID-19 by partisan politicians spilled over into communities. Using GPS and survey data, researchers Alcott et al. (2020) found that areas with higher levels of affiliation with the Republican party engaged in less social distancing than areas with higher levels of affiliation with the Democratic party, suggesting that substantial partisan gaps exist regarding beliefs relating to COVID-19. The researchers speculate these gaps in belief and compliance are a result of divergent messages sent out by partisan media channels. Social and news media networks already established in the U.S. provide an avenue through which a growing denialist network can connect, and anti-intellectual denialist beliefs can be disseminated to the mass public. Throughout much of the pandemic, right-leaning Fox News continued to minimize its viewers perceptions of COVID-19 as a threat and went so far as to question whether hospitals across the country had truly reached capacity with sick COVID-19 patients (Uscinski et al. 2020). Again, exposure to conservative media sources can mobilize the effect of strong populist beliefs to beliefs in conspiracies, but the type of media also plays an important role (Stecula & Pickup 2021; Bridgman et al. 2020). According to an essay by Bridgman et al. (2020), misinformation about COVID-19 in social media and news outlets was identified with claims that COVID is no more serious than the flu, vitamin C and other supplements will prevent people from contracting the disease, COVID is caused by eating bats, and that the pandemic is a hoax or conspiracy. The study found that, generally, more misinformation circulates on Twitter and other social media, while formal news outlets are more likely to provide recommendations consistent with public health officials. Exposure to social media is therefore associated with more misperception, and exposure to the news is associated with less misperception. Misperception regarding the virus is in turn associated with less compliance with social distancing measures. The acceptance and adoption of false scientific beliefs perpetuated through these media sources is further reinforced on an individual level through motivated reasoning, in which conclusions are heavily influenced by "personal goals that contribute to emotional coherence" (Thagard

15 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

2021). People do not like to experience cognitive-dissonance, so they gravitate to information which supports their existing beliefs.

Predispositions Individual factors considered to have an influence along the pathway of denialism beliefs fall within both demographic and psychological categories, which may play a role in a person’s affiliations and philosophies. Demographic influences included socioeconomic status, gender and racial identity, and education level. Authors Côté et al. (2020) define socioeconomic status with three indicators, to include income, education, and subjective SES. Deriving key cognitive, psychological trait, and psychological state variables from the literature on COVID, cognitive ability and style, authoritarian personality, possession of the disintegration characteristic, collective narcissism, or any of the “Dark Triad Traits” were considered key individual predispositions to denialism. Cognitive ability is an assessment of cognitive function and has been measured by performance on a vocabulary test in which participants must select a word that best describes a definition provided, as well as testing an individual's ability to apply probability information (Saribay & Yilmaz 2017). Meanwhile, when assessing cognitive style, researchers assessing a person’s ability to engage successfully in high effort thought, differentiate misleading information, and utilize base rate information in arriving at conclusions. The disintegration characteristic “represents psychotic-like experiences and behaviors reconceptualized as a personality trait” where an individual’s personality becomes “fragmented such that the individual no longer presents a unified, predictable set of beliefs, attitudes, traits, and behavioral responses” (Lazarevic et al., 2021; APA, 2020). Finally, the Dark Triad Traits are individual personality characteristics that are considered socially “undesirable,” and include narcissism (“grandiose self-view and sense of entitlement”), Machiavellianism (“manipulativeness and cynicism”), and psychopathy (“impulsivity and emotional callousness”). Unlike the grandiose narcissism affiliated with the Dark Triad Traits, collective narcissism refers to an intense emotional investment in the belief that an affiliated group is greater than it is, and it can present in the form of both agentic and communal collective narcissism (Nowak et al. 2020; de Zavala 2009). Agentic collective narcissism means strong identification with a group and exaggerated levels of confidence in its achievement and ability, while communal collective narcissism refers to a deep identification with an in-group and overestimation of its friendliness and value (Nowak et al., 2020).

16 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Mediating or Moderating Beliefs These individual demographic and psychological characteristics do not directly result in agreement with denialist beliefs regarding COVID-19 but instead work through a variety of pathways with mediating and moderating effects. Libertarianism, right-wing conservatism, and conspiracy mentality were seen as the major mediating belief systems in this process, contributing to distrust in science and government, decreased perceived effectiveness of interventions, and engagement with false scientific beliefs, all of which together may lead to the acceptance of COVID-19 denialist beliefs. Libertarianism tends to be less appealing to individuals identifying as women and non-white, as compared to white males, but other factors such as religion may play a role in influencing anti- government beliefs (Lizotte & Warren 2021). On an individual level, religiosity has been measured in a variety of ways, to include one’s propensity to believe in religious statements or teachings, one’s self- identification as religious based upon affiliation with a religious organization, and self-ranking based on level of religious commitment (Saribay & Yilmaz 2017; Byrd and Bialek 2021; Agley 2020). On a community level, religiosity may be measured by religious density, or based on the number of congregations within a certain square mileage or per a specified population size (DeFranza et al. 2020). One study found that higher levels of religiosity in communities generally resulted in greater negative reactions to COVID-19 mitigation policies (DeFranza et al. 2020). Interestingly, people in religious communities were likely to engage in more movement during shelter-in-place orders than when the order was not put into place. This suggests there may be a positive relationship between religiosity and anti-government beliefs, since highly religious people are likely to consider the commands of a higher power with much greater regard than the direction of government. This relationship was inferred and reflected in the model demonstrating the causal pathway for COVID-19 denialist beliefs (see Figure 3). Researchers Saribay and Yilmaz (2017) found that analytical cognitive style (ACS) was also a unique predictor of religiosity, with the two variables being negatively associated. Further, cognitive ability (CA) was found to be a significant predictor of social and general conservatism, with CA and these measures of conservative being negatively associated; however, no statistically significant results were found for economic conservatism. Several other individual-level psychological and personality characteristics serve as predictors of conservatism. According to a 2013 study by Feldman and Johnston, psychological variables, specifically authoritarianism and religiosity, were positively associated with social conservatism, but again, no statistically significant relationships were established by the researchers between these psychological variables and economic conservatism. Personality traits, including conscientiousness and openness to experience, were negatively associated with political

17 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

conservatism, with general uncertainty avoidance and threat management (including status threat) were directly associated with conservatism (Jost et al. 2007). Notably, communal collective narcissism and individual narcissism may be associated with heightened awareness of and sensitivity to status threat from external groups due to delicate levels of individual and group self-esteem, exacerbating in-group affiliations (de Zavala 2018; Mollon 1993). Motivational differences also play a role in political affiliation, as people with higher need for “epistemic and existential certainty and security” are more likely to be conservative. “Conspiracism” is defined as the tendency to assume that major public events, such as a pandemic, are secretly orchestrated by powerful malevolent entities acting in concert (Allington et al. 2020). Studies have previously found that intergroup tensions and the existence of status threat make someone more likely to have a conspiracy mentality, as conspiracism is used to assert the dominance and morality of the group with which an individual identifies by placing blame or harsh moral judgement on a competing group. Interestingly, individuals with less power and less internal locus of control are more likely to have a conspiracy mentality (Abalakina-Paap et al. 2002). This is particularly true for individuals with authoritarian personalities and with high levels of anomie (degeneration of moral values within a group). Abalakina-Paap et al. note that their findings support the idea that those who believe in conspiracies tend to experience feelings such as alienation and powerlessness. Individuals with the psychotic-like characteristics termed the disintegration trait (including the sub-dimensions of cognitive impairment, perceptual distortions, depression, paranoia, mania, and magical thinking) are also more likely to engage in conspiracy mentality (Lazarevic et al. 2021). Based on a 2021 study conducted by Lazarevic et al., the disintegration characteristic was strongly associated with engagement in behaviors based in pseudoscience, and high experiential and low rational thinking styles had positive mediating effects on this relationship. Honesty traits were a strong predictor of adherence to formally recommended public health guidelines, while disintegration was directly and negatively associated, as well as indirectly (mediated by conspiracy mentality) and negatively associated, with this outcome. Right-wing conservatism, libertarianism, and conspiracy mentality generally lead to COVID denialist beliefs after movement through an additional set of mediating factors. Distrust of science and government, low perceived effectiveness of public health interventions, and false scientific beliefs are largely facilitated by polarized and unsubstantiated news media. However, some individual pathways have also been identified through the literature search. During the first few months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S., conservatism and high religiosity were associated with much lower trust in the scientific process. In a study by Agley (2020), the

18 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

researchers surveyed respondents to recall their levels of trust in December 2019, and changes in mean level of trust and interactions with political and religious variables were analyzed with an ANOVA test. There was a relatively static level of trust between December 2019 and March 2020 (3.81 and 3.82 overall mean trust). However, overall, conservatism and religiosity were negatively associated with such trust. Byrd and Bialek (2021) examined other factors influencing compliance with public health recommendations. They tested the relationship between messaging (focusing on individual or statistical victims, and COVID vs. flu) and perceived threat and compliance, and measures of political attitudes and religiosity. Participants read five public health recommendations relating to COVID and then were randomly assigned among 4 groups (messaging about individual victims or messaging about statistical victims AND messaging surrounding COVID or flu). Afterwards, participants self-reported intentions to follow public health recommendations and perception of threat; they then took a cognitive reflection test, intended to demonstrate (after the fact) that a certain conclusion does not make sense. After controlling for covariates, there was a negligible difference between the effect of messaging about individual victims versus statistical victims on compliance to COVID PHE guidelines. Among moral/philosophical beliefs, messaging, and reflection, moral beliefs were the strongest predictors of compliance. Preference of liberty over equality was the best direct predictor of noncompliance overall, suggesting that libertarians may be less likely to consider public health interventions impactful and effective enough in addressing a serious problem to sacrifice individual liberty. While other individual or predisposing factors follow a pathway through mediating or moderating belief systems to arrive at denialist beliefs, psychological entitlement is directly related to COVID-19 denialist belief. Psychological entitlement is defined as "a personality characteristic whereby an individual feels more deserving of a positive outcome than other people," in which these individuals "desire, expect, and feel that they deserve more benefits" (Campbell et al. 2004; Zitek et al. 2021). In a survey-based study assessing psychological entitlement and personality against perceived risk of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, people with higher levels of psychological entitlement reported less compliance with COVID-19 guidelines as compared to those with lower levels of psychological entitlement (Zitek et al. 2021). This was largely because those with higher entitlement believed the COVID-19 PHE to be blown out of proportion. Interestingly, the study by Côté et al. (2020) suggests that current SES affects entitlement type behaviors and is dependent upon past SES experiences. Higher social class was found to have a positive association with entitlement and narcissism, with egalitarian values decreasing the effect of high social

19 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

class on narcissism. Notably, Individuals of high SES who were raised in high SES households show the greatest levels of entitlement. The relationship becomes further complicated, as psychological entitlement has been determined to be one of the primary predictors of narcissism (Piff 2014). This suggests that those with past high SES experiences may be more likely to be noncompliant with COVID- 19 public health guidance due to a lack of perceived risk that is fueled by psychological entitlement.

Conclusion/Summary The pathway toward COVID-19 denialist beliefs can only be described as an interaction of various individual and social-political causes. Populism and hyper-polarization politicize scientific information, exacerbated by polarized news and social media networks, creating an environment supportive of denialist thinking. In the context of such social and political factors, a variety of demographic, personality, and psychological characteristics work together in concert to influence right- wing conservatism, libertarianism, and conspiracy mentality. These belief systems lead to COVID-19 denialist beliefs through mediators of distrust in science and government, acceptance of false science, and low perceived effectiveness of public health actions. Additionally, when it comes to just the noncompliance with public health recommendations, psychological entitlement is a direct driver of ignoring science.

Climate Denialism Background on Climate Denialism Climate change is far from a new phenomenon. Scientists around the world have been observing and studying atmospheric warming since the late 1800s. However, our contemporary understanding and public awareness came in 1988, when NASA Scientist James Hansen testified to the U.S. Senate that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now” (Watts 2021). With early discoveries and grim prognoses came an understandable amount of skepticism. Industry groups were motivated to find error or exaggeration in the science that threatened their economic longevity. For example, soon after James Hansen’s testimony, in 1989, U.S. industry groups formed the Global Climate Coalition, a lobbying group aimed at challenging the science behind global warming (Watts 2021). As the science behind climate change grew and became more definitive, organizations and interests involved in disputing the science doubled down on their denialist advocacy. In her article published in 2017, Björnberg characterizes this denialist coalition as an “organized disinformation campaign.” The four main actors in this coalition are industry interests, specifically fossil

20 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

fuel interests, conservative think tanks, a small group of contrarian scientists, and right-wing media outlets. Oil and gas industry leaders created some of the fundamental organizations and structures in the 1980s and 1990s which continue to generate misinformation today. Not only did U.S. industry groups form the Global Climate Coalition in 1989, but they created it specifically to counter the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As climate science became more definitive, the coalition only grew, with Exxon, Shell, and BP joining between 1993 and 1994 (Watts 2021). Fossil fuel industrialists created denialism by casting growing global attention and urgency as alarmist, and then using their financial and political influence to inhibit meaningful legislation on the issue. For example, in 2009 U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, whose donor base was dominated by oil and gas industry, led the Climategate misinformation attack on scientists on the opening day of the climate conference in Copenhagen (Watts 2021). More recently, Exxon, Chevron, and BP each donated at least $500,000 to Trump’s inauguration (Watts 2021). Conservative think tanks (CTTs) act as the second key player in the creation and dissemination of climate change denialism. CTTs got involved in climate denialism in the 1990s when climate change became an issue on a global scale (Jacques et al. 2016). To conservative isolationists, climate change was perceived as a threat to global capitalism and the free market (Jacques et al. 2016). With the ending of the Cold War, climate change in some respects replaced communism as the perceived threat capturing conservative attention (Jacques et al. 2016). The two main tools of CTTs creating climate disinformation are financially supporting climate change countermovement (CCM) organizations and publishing “scientific” books that espouse denialist beliefs. There are 91 identifiable CCMs and the overwhelming majority are financially supported by conservative foundations (Brulle 2013). Additionally, between 1972 and 2005, 92% of climate skeptical books published can be linked to CTTs. Additionally, contrarian scientists have played a small yet influential role in creating misinformation disguised as science. As part of the overall scientific understanding of global climate, scientists who deny climate change are a very small group. 97% of scientists agree on climate change and its human causes; however, that three percent who are skeptical are leveraged to create a sense of doubt or debate. Furthermore, often those scientists have backing from oil and gas industries or conservative foundations. For example, in 1990 Exxon funded two researchers, Dr. Fred Seitz and Dr. Fred Singer who disputed the mainstream consensus on climate science at the time (Watts 2021). Furthermore, The Heartland Institute, a conservative and libertarian think tank, hosts an annual conference on climate change where denialists have gathered each year since 2008 (PBS 2012).

21 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

All three of these actors in climate denialism were given a platform through both mainstream and conservative leaning media. Creating media “debates” about the existence of global warming helped to perpetuate the idea that climate change was not a fact. Media outlets gave outlier voices mainstream attention and strengthen denialist organizations. Conservative media, however, has continued to act as a messenger for denialism. In Björnberg’s study, Fox News was more likely than MSNBC and CNN to present claims contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change and to feature climate science denialists (Bjornberg et al. 2017). Climate denialists promote a range of different beliefs, alternative explanations, and conspiracy theories. One form of denialism focuses on scientific uncertainty, and a range of possible explanations for rising global temperatures. We refer to this narrative as climate skepticism, as it maintains some of the scientific principles of disputing dominant theories on the basis of unknown or weak information. However, climate skepticism also can purposefully manipulate data to unjustifiably focus on weaknesses or gaps with no mention of strengths or consensus, or it can look at data in isolation and not at the full body of work that has developed. Climate denialism takes skepticism one step further into refusing to acknowledge core tenants of the problem or into the realm of conspiracy theories. For example, climate denialists can claim that the world’s temperature is rising, but that it is a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with human activities. Or they can claim that the entire scientific enterprise is a giant conspiracy to justify massive government intervention and overreach. Lastly, there are other narratives that discredit the importance of environmentalism, particularly as environmentalism is framed as a means of restricting economic growth. In these arguments, any amount of environmental damage is seen as worth the risk. These attitudes are often linked with the argument that climate change is simply not a problem. This last argument can be either a form of active or passive denial, active if advocates discredit reputable information or decry conspiracy theories, passive if they simply refuse to hear or see what is going on. We focus here largely on active climate denialism as that is typically what is studied in the literature. Without the intervention of fossil fuel interests, CTTs, contrarian scientists, and right-wing media, it is doubtful we would see the sizeable minority of the American public expressing denialist beliefs. As of 2019, the Pew Research Center found that 20% of American adults believed that human activity contributes little or not at all to global climate change. While disinformation about climate change is clearly present, it is unclear what leads one individual to believe it, and another to not. The psychological motives behind climate denialism, opposed to the political motives, are relatively

22 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

unstudied. This review and analysis of existing literature of climate denialism attempts to understand and connect the pathways that lead Americans to climate change denial. We argue that climate change denialism is created through organized movements peddling alternative explanations which resonate with particular individuals. These individuals have distinct belief systems and/or predispositions making them especially susceptible to climate disinformation and denial. The four primary factors are: Social Dominance Orientation, Right Wing Authoritarianism, System Justification, and Identity/Self Affirmation. Each have their own antecedents or correlates and it is through an understanding of each factor that we can come to better understand climate denialism in the U.S.

Social Dominance Orientation Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) was first proposed by Felicia Pratto and Jim Sidanius in their 1994 publication “Social Dominance Orientations: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.” This study’s focus was social dominance theory – the idea that “people who are more social- dominance oriented will tend to favor hierarchy-enhancing ideologies and policies, whereas those lower on SDO will tend to favor hierarchy-attenuating ideologies and policies” (Pratto and Sidanis 1994). Therefore, SDO was first introduced as a measure for a larger theory, rather than as a belief or personality trait. SDO was eventually studied independently from the overarching theory. In their journal article published in 2015, Jyhla and Akrami define SDO as “an individual difference variable measuring preference for group-based social hierarchies.” SDO was unique in its ability to gauge passive justification as well as aggressive promotion of social inequalities and hierarchies (Jyhla and Akrami 2015). As SDO has been studied further it has been linked to different traits and tendencies. While the literature is often unclear on whether these related traits are antecedents or products of SDO, their connection still provides useful context. For example, high SDO individuals tend to find hierarchies to be inevitable and legitimate because of their predisposition to perceive the world as a “competitive jungle” (Duckitt, 2001). SDO has also been linked to the personality trait of domineering, defined as “reflecting a general need for power and the tendency to be controlling, dominant and forceful in interpersonal relationships” (Jyhla and Akrami, 2015). Additionally, SDO was found to be negatively correlated with empathy, tolerance, communality, and altruism (Pratto and Sidanis, 1994). Finally, SDO was also found to be a psychological contributor to conservative ideology (Jost, 2003).

23 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

More recently, SDO has been studied for its relationship to environmentalism and links to climate change denial. In a five-year cross-lagged study using a New Zealand population survey, people higher on social dominance were more likely to oppose environmental politics, support environmental exploitation, and deny anthropogenic climate change (Stanley 2019). SDO was also shown to relate to lower environmentalism across time. In fact, according to Jyhla and Akrami (2015), SDO is a primary socio-political ideology variable predicting denial.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism Often studied together with SDO, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is a belief system that measures the degree to which people defer to established authorities, show aggression toward out- groups when authorities sanction that aggression, and support traditional values endorsed by authorities (Saunders and Ngo 2017). Right-Wing Authoritarians, therefore, are those who prefer to conform to group norms and the orders of authority figures, while punishing those who do not conform (Stanley 2019). There are several theories on the origins of RWA in individuals. In his classic book, The Authoritarian Personality, Theodore Adorno (1950) argued that RWA is learned through harsh parenting styles (Adorno 1950). Adorno theorized that children develop authoritarian nature from “status- conscious parents who punished unconventional impulses harshly and arbitrarily” (Adorno 1950). Those children, he argued, grow into adults that crave structure and control to repress fears of traumatic punishment (Adorno 1950). One of the pioneers of RWA scholarship, Altemayer, theorized that RWA results from family and peer influences as well as situational factors such as hometown or family culture, past experiences, and peer networks (Altemayer 1988). Next, in his journal article published in 2003, Jost argued that individuals subscribe to RWA to meet certain psychological needs. These needs include reduction of fear, uncertainty and loss, and the need for structure and cognitive closure (Jost 2003). While the exact antecedents that produce RWA are uncertain, they most likely involve a combination of familial influence and psychological predisposition to need cognitive closure. Regarding climate change, those with RWA beliefs are less concerned about the environment, perceive climate change as less of a risk, and support punishing environmental activists, not polluters (Stanley 2019). In fact, Stanley’s five-year cross-lagged survey study found that RWA predicts an increase in climate denial. Additionally, and similarly to SDO, RWA also relates to lower environmentalism across time.

24 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

System Justification System Justification is the need to protect and uphold existing socioeconomic systems and institutions (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2016). It describes the phenomena that people are motivated, often unconsciously, to defend, justify, and bolster the social, economic, and political arrangements on which they depend (Hennes 2016). Individual-level System Justification falls within the larger System Justification theory, which argues that “our evaluations of social systems and institutions are influenced by epistemic needs to maintain a sense of certainty and stability, existential needs to feel safety and reassurance, and relational needs to affiliate with others who are part of the same social systems” (Feygina, Jost, Goldsmith 2009). In his journal article and survey-based study, Hennes argues that System Justification exists for most people to some degree, but its strength varies (Hennes 2016). System Justification fulfills needs for safety, security, stability, meaning, and relatedness; therefore, individuals with a greater disposition to satisfy those psychological needs are going to be more prone to System Justification (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2015). System Justification has been repeatedly linked to conservatism and conservative ideology. Jost argues that much like the core tenants of System Justification, “the core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and threat” (Jost 2003). As that would indicate, political conservatives tend to be higher in System Justification beliefs (Hennes et al., 2012). System Justification is not only linked to conservatism but may even be a predicting and mediating factor. In a survey-based study conducted on a large sample size at the University of Oregon, Feyina, Jost and Goldsmith found that differences in political orientation are due, in part, to differences in the degree of System Justification in individuals (Feyina, Jost, Goldsmith 2009). System Justification has also been quite extensively studied for its link to climate change denial and climate skepticism. Hennes found that individuals who have incentives, induced or natural, to justify the economic system, misremember climate change evidence to be less serious and display more skepticism (Hennes, 2016). Climate change itself, in fact, is a particularly challenging issue for high system justifiers, because it calls into question all existing socioeconomic systems. It challenges notions of scientific progress, political efficiency, and the health and longevity of human life (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2015). It is unsurprising, therefore, that climate change is particularly difficult to grapple with for those more prone or incentivized to justify current systems and structures. A response to the difficulty is climate change denial. System Justification tendencies are associated with greater denial of environmental realities and less commitment to pro-environmental action (Feygina, Jost, Goldsmith

25 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

2009). In fact, the effects of other variables such as conservative ideology, national origin, and gender can be explained by variability in System Justification tendencies (Feygina, Jost, Goldsmith 2009).

Identity/Self-Affirmation The final factor that is useful in understanding the psychological antecedents of climate denialism is our sense of identity, particularly the way we see ourselves in groups. Social identity theory is a helpful framework to understand how our sense of self can lead to denialistic beliefs. Social identity theory posits that our self-concept comprises both personal and social identities and to maintain a positive and clear self-concept, group members are psychologically motivated to see their groups as distinct from other relevant groups, and as more positive than other relevant groups (Fielding and Hornsey 2016). This is closely linked to the idea of self-affirmation – which allows individuals to draw on personal values and standards to create a narrative of integrity around an issue that calls for behavior change (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2016). Climate change is uniquely threatening to personal integrity as it challenges a view of oneself as capable, consistent, and adhering to strong moral and ethical principles and values (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2016). While most people are made uncomfortable by climate change and their role in it, some individuals are predisposed to value their positive sense of self and sense of group more than others. Liberals, for example, tend to respond more strongly to moral values of care and fairness. Conservatives, however, tend to respond to values of in-group loyalty, authority, and purity (Wong-Parodi and Feygina 2016). Such differences in self- and group-oriented values have been studied as specifically related to climate change denialism. Individuals with psychological motives to maintain a positive image of the self or the group may be especially drawn to conspiracy beliefs (Douglas 2017). Additionally, negative inter- group relations can act as a barrier for developing solutions to environmental issues because strong group loyalty and bias lead to distrust of outsiders (Fielding and Hornsey 2016). The identity piece helps us understand how our own sense of self, and degree of motivation to protect that sense of self, uniquely position some to perceive and reject climate change as a threat to personal integrity.

Summary Figure 4 illustrates the discussed primers and how their correlates or antecedents begin a path to climate denialism. RWA is unique in that there are theories on its own causes, whereas for SDO, System Justification, and identity/self-affirmation, their causes, or lack thereof, are still unclear. Regardless, an analysis of the existing literature point toward these four primers as key in predicting

26 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

denialism. Individuals come to have such worldviews/value systems through social, environmental, or biological means, and are therefore predisposed to consume and believe climate misinformation generated by industry interests, CTTs, contrarian scientists and right-wing media. It is also important to note that while conservative ideology is often correlated with climate denialism, there is no literature suggesting that being a conservative republican causes an individual to not believe in climate change. Instead, both conservative ideology and climate denialism have many of the same antecedents.

Figure 4: Antecedents of Climate Denialism in the U.S.

Due to gaps in research and literature, however, Figure 4 is still a simplification. SDO, RWA, System Justification and Identity/Self-Affirmation are all interconnected in ways on which consensus is currently lacking. Studies on psychological causes of climate denial also lack specificity on exactly what denialists beliefs they focus on. The organized disinformation campaign espouses a range of skeptical climate beliefs, and most individuals fall somewhere on a continuum not appreciated in the current literature. More research in general, that focuses on the social and psychological processes that contribute to denial, opposed to the influence of political bias, is much needed to better understand the issue.

27 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Comparative Case Discussion An initial synthesis across all three cases points to some individual-level psychological and personality characteristics interacting with key political contexts facilitating the greater acceptance of denialist social movement messages. These include the individual characteristics of binding moral concerns, suspicious thinking (or conspiracy mentality), agency panic, and the need for cognitive closure and positive self and group image/esteem. Most of the pathways to denialism also depend on distrust in key institutions. When nested within political conditions exacerbating distrust, ingroup/outgroup tensions, identity politics, and status threat, a large-scale event, such as a pandemic or global environmental destruction, primes people with these characteristics to either seek out or agree with alternative explanations. Denialist individuals are highly motivated to find an alternative story. Additionally, each case has an organized and effective network of denialists propagating myths, conspiracy theories, and misinformation. Across these cases, key factors influencing the effectiveness of denialist movements include messenger attributes such as portrayed scientific legitimacy and dynamic leaders, and tactics surrounding messaging and online presence. Lastly, political leadership clearly matters. When denialists are in power the results are disastrous. With these similar findings in mind, there are identifiable areas for testing interventions. For example, in how to build greater trust in government or in medical care. One way to do this might be to simply improve performance. Improving the quality of government (or medical) services, improving responsiveness to public concerns, and delivering better outcomes might be one approach. The enactment of large-scale legislation, such as the COVID-19 relief bills in the U.S., may be one way of assessing the impact of government activities on levels of trust. Additionally, scholars could examine ways of reversing or deescalating polarization. Social psychology work on intergroup contact theory may be one such approach at the micro-level. However, there are many notable gaps in the literature, particularly when trying to understand individual-level psychological factors, how they interact with social and political conditions, and how they are mediated by partisanship, ideology, or other belief systems. Individual-level psychological factors are absent in much of the AIDS denialism literature, and scholars of COVID-19 and climate denialism have not studied many of the same attributes. Moving forward, it would be useful to better identify shared or disparate traits across types of denialism by including the same measures in surveys of all three. The role of mediators and/or moderators is also underexplored. Without developing a stronger evidence-base on the drivers of denialism, it will be more difficult to intervene effectively. For example, as highlighted in the AIDS and COVID denialism cases in particular, there are multiple pathways

28 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

to denialism which might require different mitigation approaches. Dealing with stigma avoidance, status threat, and medical mistrust among Black Americans with HIV who express denialist beliefs and who do not initiate treatment, will be different than how you convince a white man who is high on anti- intellectualism. Additionally, how we might counteract denialist narratives to develop stronger popular support for evidence-based policies might vary by issue. There is much room for future empirical work.

29 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

References

Abalakina-Paap, M., Stephan, W., Craig, T., & Gregory, W. (2002). Beliefs in Conspiracies. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00160.

Agley J. (2020). Assessing changes in US public trust in science amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health, 183, 122–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.004

Allcott, H., Boxell, L., Conway, J., Gentzkow, M., Thaler, M., & Yang, D. (2020). Polarization and public health: Partisan differences in social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic. Journal of public economics, 191, 104254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104254

Allington, D., Duffy, B., Wessely, S., Dhavan, N., & Rubin, J. (2020). Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychological medicine, 1–7. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172000224X

Altemeyer, B. (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass (Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism), pp. xxix, 378.

American Psychological Association. (2020). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://dictionary.apa.org/personality-disintegration.

Björnberg, K. E. et al. (2017) ‘Climate and environmental science denial: A review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, pp. 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.066.

Bogart, L. M., & Thorburn, S. (2005). Are HIV/AIDS conspiracy beliefs a barrier to HIV prevention among African Americans?. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 38(2), 213-218.

Bogart, L. M., Wagner, G., Galvan, F. H., & Banks, D. (2010). Conspiracy beliefs about HIV are related to antiretroviral treatment nonadherence among African American men with HIV. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 53(5), 648.

Bridgman, A., Merkley, E., Loewen, P. J., Owen, T., Ruths, D., Teichmann, L., & Zhilin, O. (2020). The causes and consequences of COVID-19 misperceptions: Understanding the role of news and social media. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-028

Brulle, R. J. (2014) ‘Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations’, Climatic Change, 122(4), pp. 681–694. doi: 10.1007/s10584- 013-1018-7.

Burki, Talha. (2020). The origin of SARS-CoV-2. The Lancet: Infectious Diseases,20(19),1018-2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30641-1.

30 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Byrd, N. and Białek, M. (2021). Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cognition,212,104649. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104649.

Campbell, W.K., Bonacci, A.M., Shelton, J., Exline, J.J., & Bushman, B.J. Psychological entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure. J Pers Assess,83(1):29-45. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04. PMID: 15271594.

Center for Systems Science and Engineering (CSSE). (2021). COVID-19 Dashboard. Johns Hopkins University & Medicine. Retrieved from https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html.

Chigwedere, P., Seage III, G. R., Gruskin, S., Lee, T. H., & Essex, M. (2008). Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49(4), 410-415.

Climate of Doubt (no date) FRONTLINE. Available at: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/climate- of-doubt/ (Accessed: 11 June 2021).

Côté, S., Stellar, J.E., Willer, R., Forbes, R.C., Martin, S.R., Bianchi, E.C. (2021). The Psychology of Entrenched Privilege: High Socioeconomic Status Individuals From Affluent Backgrounds Are Uniquely High in Entitlement. Pers Soc Psychol Bull,47(1):70-88. doi: 10.1177/0146167220916633. Epub 2020 May 18. PMID: 32418465.

DeFranza, D., Lindow, M., Harrison, K., Mishra, A., Mishra, H. (2020). Religion and reactance to COVID-19 mitigation guidelines. Am Psychol. doi: 10.1037/amp0000717. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32772540. de Grazia, A. (1950) “The Authoritarian Personality. By T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, R. Nevitt Sanford. (New York: Harper & Brothers. 1950. Pp. xxxiii, 990. $7.50.),” American Political Science Review. Cambridge University Press, 44(4), pp. 1005–1006. doi: 10.2307/1951300. de Zavala, A., Cichockam, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. Collective narcissism and its social consequences. J Pers Soc Psychol,97(6):1074-96. doi: 10.1037/a0016904. PMID: 19968420.

Duckitt, J. (2001) ‘A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice’, in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, pp. 41–113. doi: 10.1016/S0065- 2601(01)80004-6.

Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2013). Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity. Political Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12055.

Feygina, I., Jost, J. T. and Goldsmith, R. E. (2010) ‘System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), pp. 326–338. doi: 10.1177/0146167209351435.

31 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Fielding, K. S. and Hornsey, M. J. (2016) ‘A Social Identity Analysis of Climate Change and Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors: Insights and Opportunities’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121.

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2): 167-187.

Grebe, E., & Nattrass, N. (2012). AIDS conspiracy beliefs and unsafe sex in Cape Town. AIDS and Behavior, 16(3), 761-773.

Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 110-119.

Hennes, E. P. et al. (2012) ‘Not All Ideologies are Created Equal: Epistemic, Existential, and Relational Needs Predict System-Justifying Attitudes’. doi: 10.1521/SOCO.2012.30.6.669.

Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. New York: Vintage Books.

Hogg R, Nkala B, Dietrich J, Collins A, Closson K, et al. (2017) Conspiracy beliefs and knowledge about HIV origins among adolescents in Soweto, South Africa. PLOS ONE 12(2): e0165087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165087

Holt, E. (2019). “Russia considers legislation to tackle rising AIDS denialism,” The Lancet HIV/AIDS.

Jost, J. T. et al. (2003) ‘Political conservatism as motivated social cognition’, Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), pp. 339–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.

Jost, J., Napier, J., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S., Palfai, T., & Ostafin, B. (2007). Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity? Pers Soc Psychol Bull,33(7):989-1007. doi: 10.1177/0146167207301028. PMID: 17620621.

Jylhä, K. M. and Akrami, N. (2015) ‘Social Dominance Orientation and climate change denial: The role of dominance and System Justification’, Personality and Individual Differences, 86, pp. 108–111. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.041.

Kalichman, S. C. (2009). Denying AIDS: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and human tragedy. Springer Science & Business Media.

Kapstein, E. B., & Busby, J. W. (2010). Making markets for merit goods: the political economy of antiretrovirals. Global Policy, 1(1), 75-90.

Klein, E. (2020). Why We Are Polarized. London: Profile Books.

Lazarević, L. B., Purić, D., Teovanović, P., Lukić, P., Zupan, Z., & Knežević, G. (2021). What drives us to be (ir)responsible for our health during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality. Personality and individual differences, 176, 110771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110771

32 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Lizotte, M., & Warren, T. (2021). Understanding the appeal of libertarianism: Gender and race differences in the endorsement of libertarian principles. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12237.

Maxmen, A., & Mallapaty, S. (2021). The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientist’s do and don’t know. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3. Merkley, E. (2020). Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 24-48.

Mollon, P. (1993). The fragile self: The structure of narcissistic disturbance. Whurr Publishers.

Motta, M. (2017). The Dynamics and Political Implications of Anti-Intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research, 46(3): 465-498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17719507

Nattrass, N. (2012). The AIDS conspiracy: Science fights back. Columbia University Press.

Nowak, B., Brzóska, P., Piotrowski, J., Sedikides, C., Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., & Jonason, P. K. (2020). Adaptive and maladaptive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The roles of Dark Triad traits, collective narcissism, and health beliefs. Personality and individual differences, 167, 110232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110232

Pew Research Center (2019) ‘U.S. Public Views on Climate and Energy’, Pew Research Center Science & Society, 25 November. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/11/25/u-s- public-views-on-climate-and-energy/ (Accessed: 11 June 2021).

Piff, P. K. (2014). Wealth and the inflated self: Class, entitlement, and narcissism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213501699.

Pratto, F. et al. (1994) ‘Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Available at: https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3207711 (Accessed: 11 June 2021).

Quinn, K. G., Kelly, J. A., DiFranceisco, W. J., Tarima, S. S., Petroll, A. E., Sanders, C., ... & Amirkhanian, Y. A. (2018). The health and sociocultural correlates of AIDS genocidal beliefs and medical mistrust among African American MSM. AIDS and Behavior, 22(6), 1814-1825.

Quissell, K. (2017). The Impact of Stigma and Policy Target Group Characteristics on Policy Aggressiveness for HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis. [Dissertation] American University.

Radnitz, S., & Underwood, P. (2017). Is belief in conspiracy theories pathological? A survey experiment on the cognitive roots of extreme suspicion. British Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 113.

Ross, M. W., Essien, E. J., & Torres, I. (2006). Conspiracy beliefs about the origin of HIV/AIDS in four racial/ethnic groups. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 41(3), 342.

33 Panel T07-P16 Session 1 Draft Please do not circulate

Saribay, S., & Yilmaz, O. (2017). Analytic cognitive style and cognitive ability differentially predict religiosity and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences,114(1):24-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.056.

Saunders, B. A. and Ngo, J. (2017) ‘The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale’, in Zeigler-Hill, V. and Shackelford, T. K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1262-1.

Saunders, B. and Ngo, J. (2017) ‘The Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale’, in, pp. 1–4. doi: 10.1007/978-3- 319-28099-8_1262-1.

Speed, M., & Mannion, R. (2020). Populism and health policy: three international case studies of right- wing populist policy frames. Sociology of Health & Illness,42(8),967-1981. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13173.

Stanley, S. K. et al. (2019) ‘The influence of Social Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism on environmentalism: A five-year cross-lagged analysis’, PLoS ONE, 14(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219067.

Stecula, D., & Pickup, M. (2021). How populism and conservative media fuel conspiracy beliefs about COVID-19 and what it means for COVID-19 behaviors. Research & Politics,8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168021993979.

Swami, V., Furnham, A., Smyth, N., Weis, L., Lay, A., & Clow, A. (2016). Putting the stress on conspiracy theories: Examining associations between psychological stress, anxiety, and belief in conspiracy theories. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 72-76.

Thagard, P. (2021). The cognitive science of COVID-19: Acceptance, denial, and belief change. Methods,S1046-2023(21),00075-X. doi: 10.1016/j.ymeth.2021.03.009.

Uscinski, J. E., & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. Oxford University Press.

Uscinski, J. E., Enders, A. M., Klofstad, C. A., Seelig, M. I., Funchion, J. R., Everett, C., Wuchty, S., Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. N. (2020). Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories?. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015

Watts, J. et al. (no date) ‘Half a century of dither and denial – a climate crisis timeline’, The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2019/oct/09/half- century-dither-denial-climate-crisis-timeline (Accessed: 11 June 2021).

Wong-Parodi, G. and Feygina, I. (2020) ‘Understanding and countering the motivated roots of climate change denial’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp. 60–64. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.11.008.

Zitek, E. M., & Schlund, R. J. (2021). Psychological entitlement predicts noncompliance with the health guidelines of the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and individual differences, 171, 110491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110491

34