Scientific findings and innovations have shaped American life in countless ways, but not all scientific advances have received a warm reception by the public. This project investigates the factors that predict public acceptance or rejection of scientific evidence, focusing on ?sophisticated rejectionists,? individuals who possess the ability to evaluate scientific evidence critically, but still reject the scientific consensus on key issues. The results of the proposed research will identify situations where sophisticated rejection of science is likely, understand how people maintain beliefs contrary to the scientific consensus (e.g., childhood vaccinations) and suggest ways to communicate about science so that it receives a fair hearing.
Scientists take rigorous precautions to ensure the validity of their research and the accuracy of its reporting. However, the public may reject the scientific consensus on an issue (e.g., genetically modified foods) based on factors other than those employed by scientists. This research program examines one possible contributor to such rejection: individuals may lack the skills needed to understand and evaluate scientific evidence. In earlier work, the researcher developed and validated a novel scale measuring nonscientists? scientific reasoning skills (SRS), defined as those needed to assess the validity of scientific results. The present research uses this scale to understand a group of individuals identified in the research to date: ?sophisticated rejectionists,? defined as individuals who have high SRS scores yet still reject the scientific consensus on key issues. The first study will analyze data from the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics? Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology, looking for evidence of such sophisticated rejectionists. The second study will investigate how they reject science. Do they fail to apply their skills to dissect spurious scientific arguments or is their interpretation of scientific evidence biased by their belief in claims that most scientists would consider false or incomplete? Two additional studies will test strategies to reduce sophisticated rejection of science by varying how science is communicated. As a whole, this research furthers scientific understanding of how nonscientists evaluate, and sometimes reject, scientific evidence.
