http://climateshiftproject.org/2014/02/12/upcoming-american-university-research-seminars-analyze-the-media-ideology-and-climate-politics/ A perceived rise in ideologically-motivated scientific denialism within the Republican Party has led some scholars and pundits to argue that conservatives have become inherently anti-science and are in general more likely than liberals to engage in motivated reasoning when presented debiasing scientific evidence. Sociological research employing the General Social Survey has shown that institutional confidence in science among conservatives has significantly dropped since the 1980s while confidence among liberals has remained largely unchanged. Other scholars however, argue that these two trends are contextual and based on the science issues at question and the degree of politicization, rather than a trait specific to conservative ideology, and argue that liberals are equally likely to express lower confidence in science and to dismiss scientific evidence contradicting their ideological predispositions, especially when paired with political cues. Presenting a series of national online experiments, this study aims to explicate this debate by examining the cognitive and affective processes through which conservatives and liberals respond to corrective statements about false beliefs, either paired or unpaired with political cues, on politically controversial scientific issues (i.e., climate change, evolution, nuclear power, and hydraulic fracking of natural gas) compared to non-controversial scientific issues (i.e. astronomy and geological science) and the consequences of these processes for institutional confidence and affective polarization toward the scientific community. Erik Nisbet, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor of Communication at The Ohio State University where he studies political communication as it applies to public diplomacy, international conflict, and debates over science and environmental issues.

1. Vicious Circles of Science
Communication? Ideology and
Institutional Trust in Science
Dr. Erik C. Nisbet
Kathryn E. Cooper
Kelly Garrett
http://hde.osu.edu/

2. Politicization / Polarization of Science?

3. Declining Trust in Science Among
Conservatives
Gauchat, ASR 2012

4. Increased Polarization
Gauchat, ASR 2012

5. Example: Climate Denialism (Dunlap &
McCright)

6. My take…
• Need to unpack “Psychological” from “Institutional”
Denialism
• Political polarization in trust of the scientific community
is contextual and contingent on what science issues are
most publicly /politically salient, e.g.
▫ Amount political and media discourse
▫ Political mobilization and entrepreneurship
▫ Degree of institutional denialism
• Political conservatives are NOT inherently anti-science
or less likely to “update” beliefs that liberals

7. Liberal Drivers of Polarization?

8. Kahan’s Critique: Testing Psychological
Differences
• Differences in risk perceptions, source derogation,
and perceived scientific consensus between
“liberals” and “conservatives” around climate
change and nuclear power
• Tested whether political conservatism is
distinctively associated with unreflective thinking or
motivated reasoning
• No differences between conservatives and liberals

9. Kahan’s Critique: Testing Psychological
Differences
• In fact those who scored highest on a “Cognitive
Reflection Test” were most likely to engage in
motivated reasoning
• Consistent with his prior work with Ellen Peters
that found that those who scored highest on a
combined numeracy/science literacy scale were
more likely to form risk perceptions consistent
with ideology/values

10. Scientific Denialism is not “new”
Sherwood, 2011

11. Trust May Be Contextual –
eg. Political Trust

12. Anti-Reflexity Thesis?
(McCright et al, 2013)
For each of the following types of scientists, please tell us how much you distrust or
trust them to advise elected officials on important science-based policy
Production Scientists
•
•
•
•
•
•
Food scientists who invent new processed
food products in their laboratories
Industrial chemists who create stronger
synthetic materials for use in construction
Petroleum geologists who identify new
locations to drill for petroleum’
Polymer chemists who create more
durable plastics for use in automobiles
Agricultural scientists who create new
fertilizers to boost agricultural production
Materials scientists who help us design
higher-quality screens for our smart phones
Impact Scientists
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public health scientists who study the
health impacts of new types of processed
food
Epidemiologists who study the health risks
of distrust new synthetic chemicals used in
housing construction
Climate scientists who measure the
amount of greenhouse gas pollution in the
atmosphere
Wildlife ecologists who investigate how
the disposal of human-made plastics affect
wildlife habitats
Oceanographers who research how
pollution from agriculture is degrading coral
reefs
Environmental scientists who study the
ecological impacts of mining for minerals
used in smart phones

13. Classical Approach To Communication
& Trust

14. A Virtuous or Vicious Circle?

15. Vicious Circle of Science, Media,
& Politics

16. Vicious Circle: Motivated Reasoning
• We “work backward” from our strongly held preexisting beliefs and values to reduce affective and
emotional distress – reason effused with emotion
or “hot cognition”
• Values and ideology act as “perceptual screens”
through processes such as…
▫
▫
▫
▫
Selective Exposure, Attention, Recall
Counter-arguing & Reactance
Source Derogation
Affect

17. Messages, Audience Response, & Trust
Biased/Motivated Processing Driven by
Ideology and/or Ideology-effused beliefs
+
-
+
-

18. Politicization Across Science Contexts

19. Politicization Across Science Contexts

20. Two Studies
• Study One
▫ Do accuracy of beliefs and institutional trust in
science vary by science context & ideology?
• Study Two
▫ Do affective and cognitive responses to a science
communication vary by context & ideology?
▫ Do audience cognitive and affective responses to a
science message influence institutional trust in
science?

21. Study One
• Survey Experiment Embedded in November
2012 Election Survey (N=1289)
• Respondents were randomly assigned to 3
conditions
▫ Evolution/Climate Change
▫ Fracking / Nuclear Power
▫ Astronomy / Geology
• Asked four knowledge and two policy Qs
• Followed by two “trust in science” questions

22. Results: Predicting Accurate Beliefs
(knowledge) & Trust
Accuracy
of Beliefs
Institutional
Trust
.10*
-.26***
Attention to Science News
.18***
.23***
Evolution/Climate Change
.68***
-.06*
Fracking /Nuclear Power
-.40***
-.22**
Ideology X Evolution/CC
-.84***
N.S.
.16#
.15*
27.6***
17.8***
Ideology (conservative)
Ideology X Fracking/Nuclear
%R2
OLS Regression for education, education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, Bible literalism, political
ideology, attention to science news, political interest; standardized co-efficients reported; # p<.10 ., * p < .05,
**p< .01, ***p< .001

23. Belief Accuracy: Ideology X Condition
5
Liberals
4.5
Moderates
Conservatives
Mean Knowledge Score
4
3.7
3.5
3
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.7
3.3
3
3
3.1
2.5
2
1.5
1
Evolution/Climate Change
Fracking/Nuclear
Condition
Space/Geology
Marginal Means controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, Bible literalism, political ideology, attention to science news,
political interest

24. Trust: Ideology x Condition
7
Evolution/Climate
Change
6
Fracking/Nuclear
Space/Geology
Mean Trust
5
4.5
4.5
4.7
4.2
4.3
4.4
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
3
2
1
Liberals
Moderates
Ideology
Conservatives
Marginal Means controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, Bible literalism, political ideology, attention to science news,
political interest

25. Study 2
• Qualtrics experiment N=1500
• Same three sets of science domains
▫ Evolution/Climate Change
▫ Fracking / Nuclear Power
▫ Space/ Geology
• Ask participants to evaluate fake science
education website for adults and college
students

26. Method
• Respondents were asked
▫ Interest and Attention Qs / Science Literacy
▫ Four science knowledge Qs about randomly
assigned science topic
▫ Read a “ScienceWise” entry on same issue
▫ Then were asked
 Affective Response
 Cognitive Reactance
 Institutional Trust

27. “ScienceWise”

28. Theoretical Model
(Moderated-Mediation)
Socio-Economic Ideology
and T1 Belief Accuracy
Negative Affect
Debiasing
Scientific
Communication
Institutional
Trust in Science
CognitiveReactance

29. T1 Belief Accuracy: Condition x
Ideology
5
Liberals
4.5
Moderates
Conservatives
Mean Knowledge Score
4
3.6
3.5
3
3.3
3
2.9
3
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.5
2
1.5
1
Evolution/Climate Change
Fracking/Nuclear
Condition
Space/Geology
Marginal Means controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, Bible literalism, political ideology, attention and interest o
science news, political interest and attention to political news, scientific literacy, dummies for stimulus sampling and other conditions

30. Results: Predicting Trust
Institutional
Trust
Ideology (conservative)
-.23***
Interest/Attention to Science News
.21***
Interest/Attention to Political News
-.06
T1 Belief Accuracy
.13***
Evolution/Climate Change
-.51***
Fracking /Nuclear Power
-.27***
T1 Belief Accuracy X Evolution/CC
.39***
Ideology X Fracking/Nuclear
.20**
%R2
20.4***
OLS Regression controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, biblical literalism, political
ideology, attention and interest to science news, political interest and attention to political news, scientific literacy,
dummy variables for stimulus sampling, social indicators, and political cue conditions; standardized co-efficients
reported; # p<.10 ., * p < .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001

31. Trust : Condition X Ideology
7
Liberals
Moderates
6
5.7
Conservatives
5.4
Mean Trust
5
4.7
4.7
4.4
4
4.6
5.2
4.5
4
3
2
1
Evolution/Climate Change
Fracking/Nuclear
Condition
Space/Geology
Marginal Means controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical Christian, biblical literalism, political ideology, attention and interest to
science news, political interest and attention to political news, scientific literacy, dummy variables for stimulus sampling, social indicators, and
political cue conditions

32. Trust : Condition X T1 Belief Accuracy
7
Low Knowledge
6
Moderate Knowledge
Mean Knowledge Score
High Knowledge
5
4.8
4.8
4.4
4
4
4.3
4.9
4.9
4.5
4
3
2
1
Evolution/Climate Change
Fracking/Nuclear
Condition
Space/Geology
Marginal Means controlling for education, race, age, gender, evangelical christian, biblical literalism, political ideology, attention and interest to
science news, political interest and attention to political news, scientific literacy, dummy variables for stimulus sampling, social indicators, and
political cue conditions

33. CC/ Evolution vs. Space/Geology
T1
Knowledge
Ideology
(conservative)
-0.10***
-0.24***
0.13***
0.11**
Negative Affect
-0.17***
-0.20
0.52***
Debiasing
Scientific
0.74***
Communication
.50
CognitiveReactance
Total Variance Explained
Negative Affect = 54.6%
Counter-Reactance = 56.3%
Institutional Trust = 36.4%
-0.07***
Institutional
Trust in Science
-0.40***
Significant Indirect Effects on Trust through Negative Affect for Moderates (-0.02) and
Conservatives (-0.04)
T1 Belief Accuracy and Ideology both Moderate Effect on Cognitive-Reactance : Ranges
from Liberals with High Accuracy with No Indirect Effect to Conservatives with High
Accuracy having indirect effect of -0.29

34. Fracking/Nuclear vs. Space/Geology
Total Variance Explained
Negative Affect = 54.6%
Counter-Reactance = 56.5%
Institutional Trust = 36.4%
Ideology
(conservative)
-0.13***
-0.13***
Negative Affect
0.60**
Debiasing
Scientific
Communication
-0.07***
0.52***
Institutional
Trust in Science
0.20*
1.1***
0.73***
CognitiveReactance
-0.39***
Significant Indirect Effects on Trust through Negative Affect for Liberals (-0.02)
Significant Indirect Effects on Trust through Cognitive-reactance for Liberals (-0.29),
Moderates (-0.21), and Conservatives (-0.13).

35. Summary
• An ideological differentiation in knowledge
across controversial science-policy contexts BUT not for topics like astronomy or geology.
• Simply communicating factual statements,
regardless of policy mention, about controversial
science negatively influences institutional trust
through affective and cognitive responses

36. Summary
• Different Patterns of Audience Response
▫ Ideology moderated affective response, and prior
knowledge moderated coginitve-reactance, in
evolution/climate change condition
▫ More salient issues = high ideological
differentiation in knowledge - is ideology “baked
in?”
▫ Less salient controversial issues = only ideology
moderates audience responses
▫ Low ideological differentiation /low salience =
prior knowledge moderates response but not
ideology (Bayesian?)

37. Vicious Circle of Trust?
• How do we break the circle? No easy answers…
▫ Reduce the political /ideological polarization at
the institutional level?
▫ Reduce media amplification of the vicious circle?
▫ Employ frames or narratives instead of just facts
to reduce negative affective and cognitive
responses?
▫ Is Bill Nye helping or hurting when debating
evolution or appearing on MTP?

38. Moving forward
• Replication
▫ Our embedded political and Facebook cues did not
seem to have a main effect- no significant
differences across conditions?
▫ No interaction with political interest/attention?
▫ More explicit political stimulus?
▫ Two-wave survey experiment
▫ Add additional contexts – Embryonic Stem Cells
and Genetically Modified Food

41. Knowledge: Climate Change/Evolution
▫ Any recent climate change is caused primarily by the sun.
▫ Climate change will increase hurricanes, flooding, and
drought.
▫ Carbon dioxide gas from burning fossil fuels (coal, gas, and
oil) does not contribute
▫ There is a great deal of disagreement among scientists
about whether or not climate change is primarily caused by
human activities
▫ Humans share a relatively recent common ancestor with
chimpanzees.
▫ Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.
▫ The complexity of humans cannot be explained by
evolution alone
▫ Human beings and other living things have existed in their
present form since the beginning of time.

42. Knowledge: Fracking/Nuclear
▫ Used hydraulic fracking fluid often contaminates groundwater.
▫ Hydraulic fracking of natural gas increases cancer rates in
surrounding communities.
▫ Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States have decreased
substantially in recent years, in part due to the growth of hydraulic
fracking of natural gas.
▫ Burning natural gas is not better for the environment than is
burning oil or coal.
▫ Nuclear power plants do not emit any carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere.
▫ Nuclear power plants contribute to global warming.
▫ Uranium, which is used to make nuclear fuel, is extremely scarce.
▫ People who live near nuclear power plants are typically exposed to
20% more radiation than are people who do not.

43. Knowledge: Space/ Geology
▫ The gravity forces of the sun and moon cause water tides in
the ocean.
▫ The redness of Mars is an optical illusion caused by
different wavelengths of light from the Sun
▫ The main element found in stars is neon
▫ Our solar system has nine planets.
▫ Alaska is the most earthquake prone state in the United
States.
▫ Earthquakes are caused by movements in the Earth's core.
▫ Oil is formed from the organic remains of dinosaurs
compressed over time by layers of rock.
▫ Oxygen and carbon are the primary elements found in the
air we breathe.

44. Counter-Reactance
▫ Sometimes I wanted to "argue back" against what I read on the
ScienceWise website.
▫ I found myself thinking of ways I disagreed with the information
on the ScienceWise website.
▫ I couldn't help thinking about ways that the information on the
ScienceWise website was inaccurate or misleading. I found myself
looking for flaws in the way information was presented on the
ScienceWise website.
▫ I felt like the ScienceWise website was trying to persuade me.
▫ The ScienceWise website was very objective.
▫ The ScienceWise website tried to pressure me to think a certain
way
▫ The ScienceWise website did not try to force its opinions on me.
▫ ScienceWise website was very believeable.
▫ The ScienceWise website was not very credible.
▫ The ScienceWise website tried to manipulate me.

45. Affective Response
• When you think about the information you just
read on the ScienceWise website, how do you
feel
▫
▫
▫
▫
Distrustful?
Angry?
Annoyed?
Suspicious?

46. Institutional Trust
▫ I have very little confidence in the scientific
community.
▫ Information from the scientific community is
trustworthy.
▫ I trust the scientific community to do what is
right.
▫ The scientific community often does not tell the
public the truth.
▫ I am suspicious of the scientific community