Basic science knowledge & cognitive sophistication contribute more to science beliefs than political ideology; limited evidence for identity-protective cognition (i.e., motivated reasoning)

McPhetres, Jonathon, and Gordon Pennycook. 2019. “Science Beliefs, Political Ideology, and Cognitive Sophistication.” OSF Preprints. November 19. doi:10.31219/osf.io/ad9v7

Abstract: Various mechanisms have been proposed to explain why individuals hold pro- or anti-science beliefs. Some models focus on the role of political ideology and motivated reasoning, arguing that greater cognitive sophistication enables individuals to interpret evidence in an identity-consistent manner. Other models focus on the roles of basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication, arguing that more general science knowledge and greater cognitive sophistication facilitate pro-science beliefs. To test these competing accounts, we identified a large range of controversial issues that are ostensibly subject to ideological disagreement and examined the relative roles of political ideology, science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication. Our results, which are consistent across two different nationally representative samples of Americans (N = 1,709), indicate that a combination of basic science knowledge and cognitive sophistication contribute more to science beliefs about various topics than political ideology. Furthermore, we found limited evidence for identity-protective cognition (i.e., motivated reasoning). By investigating a broad array of science-related beliefs, our results adjudicate between four accounts of science attitudes and suggest that educators and policymakers should focus on increasing basic science literacy and critical thinking instead of focusing on the ideological factors that divide people.

---
Anti-science attitudes represent a major roadblock for responsible public policy. Suitably, several competing mechanisms have been proposed to explain why people believe what they believe about science. Whereas some models focus on the potential roles of motivation and identity, others focus on the potential roles of science knowledge and information processing.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to adjudicate between these competing accounts because past work has almost exclusively focused on a few specific issues, such as belief in climate change or evolution. This narrowed focus naturally limits the conclusions that can be drawn about why people hold anti-science beliefs–for example, because different topics may vary in their relation to identity or to the downstream benefit of basic science knowledge. Here we investigate a large number of science-related beliefs and examine a broad set of psychological correlates. This allows us to test the evidence for or against four specific accounts of science attitudes, each of which make different predictions about the roles of identity, basic science knowledge, and cognitive sophistication.

Perhaps the most prevalent account–the motivated reasoning account–argues that ideology playing a causal role in the formation of science-related beliefs. This account is commonly evoked to explain partisan differences in beliefs (or skepticism) about anthropogenic global warming, with conservatism being associated with an anti-science stance (Bohr, 2014; Gauchat, 2012; Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013a). The source of anti-science beliefs, according to the motivated reasoning account, is largely cultural. For example, global warming was politicized by conservative think tanks which was picked up by laypeople who are motivated to believe information that is consistent with their political ideology. Importantly, for other issues, it may be that liberals are motivated to reject science–such as with stereotypes that liberals are more likely to reject nuclear power. Other ideological factors, such as religiosity (McPhetres & Zuckerman, 2017; Rutjens, Sutton, & van der Lee, 2018), could also be implicated in the broad motivated reasoning account.

A related account, often referred to as identity-protective cognition, contends that cognitively sophisticated individuals are actually better able to use their reasoning skills to selectively conform their evaluation of evidence to their political ideology (Kahan, Landrum, Carpenter, Helft, & Hall Jamieson, 2017; Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2013). Indeed, research has shown that polarization around scientific issues is stronger (not weaker) among individuals who are more cognitively sophisticated (Bolsen, Druckman, & Cook, 2015; Hamilton, Cutler, & Schaefer, 2012; Kahan et al., 2012) and/or educated (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017a; Ehret, Sparks, & Sherman, 2017; Mccright & Dunlap, 2011). For example, concern for climate change decreases with increased numeracy among Republicans but the opposite association is evident for Democrats (Kahan et al., 2012), and those with greater science literacy are more polarized on beliefs about stem cell research, the big bang, and evolution (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017a). However, the identity-protective cognition account has focused on a select number of issues which are known to be politically valanced, such as climate change and human evolution (Drummond & Fischhoff, 2017a; Gauchat, 2012; Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013b). Thus, it remains unclear if these few issues are the exception or the rule and therefore it is unknown if the identity-protective account can be extended to a wider variety of anti-science beliefs. This is important because it would be problematic for broad public policy on science education to be influenced by a few highly salient but exceptional cases.

In contrast to accounts that focus on motivation and identity, the knowledge deficit account suggests that people reject certain scientific claims simply because they do not possess enough (or the correct) basic scientific knowledge (e.g., Bak, 2001; Miller, 1998). Specifically, science knowledge is often considered in terms of the basic facts that one knows.for example, that electrons are smaller ["so to speak"] than atoms, or that antibiotics don't kill viruses. The knowledge deficit model implies that anti-science beliefs are prevalent primarily because science is difficult to understand without advanced training (Lombrozo, Shtulman, & Weisberg, 2006; Shtulman & Schulz, 2008). A key policy prescription from this model is that teaching people about science will straightforwardly lead to an increase in pro-scientific beliefs and attitudes.

Closely related is what we will call the analytic thinking account, which is that people simply do not think analytically enough about science issues. Whereas the knowledge deficit account suggests that having a strong core understanding of basic scientific facts is central to the formation of pro-science attitudes, the analytic thinking account argues that the disposition to think analytically and critically (over and above underlying science knowledge) is central. In support of this, studies have found that those who reason more analytically are more likely to endorse evolution (Gervais, 2015) and vaccination (Sarathchandra, Navin, Largent, & McCright, 2018), and to reject conspiracy theories (Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran, & Furnham, 2014) and paranormal beliefs (Pennycook, Cheyne, Seli, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2012). In contrast, individuals who are more receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit (Pennycook, Cheyne, Barr, Koehler, & Fugelsang, 2015) –randomly generated nonsense statements– are both less analytic and more likely to believe in the efficacy of non-evidenced based alternative medicines. As above, however, it is unclear if these results are specific to particular science-related beliefs.

In this study, we provide data that allows us to distinguish between these different accounts of science belief. To do this, we identified a large range of controversial issues that are likely to be subject to ideological disagreement. This allows us to ask which of the accounts explains more variance both among and across specific issues. The motivated reasoning account predicts that ideology will be a strong and consistent correlate of science attitudes and the knowledge deficit account makes the same prediction, but for basic science knowledge instead of ideology.  Naturally, it is possible that both accounts are accurate – our goal here is to assess which explains more variance, and for which science topics. The identity-protective cognition and analytic thinking accounts do, however, make competing predictions: Whereas the former predicts that cognitive sophistication will be associated with increased political polarization, the latter predictions that cognitive sophistication will simply be associated with increased proscientific attitudes across the board. Although it is possible that each of the four accounts is the best explanation for single specific science-related beliefs, the goal here is to ascertain which account(s) hold the strongest broad predictive power. This will help guide informed public policy in addition to psychological theory.