Motivated Rejection of Science

By Stephan Lewandowsky, Klaus Oberauer. 2016

320 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/316d32c154b0102b7bf8ab44c13553ade17d37a5

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Modeling Attitudes Toward Science: Development and Validation of the Credibility of Science Scale (2017, background): “…tendency is to trust in the methods and findings of science, hold positive attitudes toward the scientific enterprise, view scientists as credible, and so forth (Brewer & Ley, 2013; Earle & Cvetkovich, 1995; Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, & Maibach, 2014; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016).”
Science Denial Across the Political Divide: Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science (2018, background): “For example, conservatives may appear to be more antiscience than liberals because the issues that are commonly discussed in the media and studied by researchers are ones that conservatives are motivated to reject (e.g., climate change; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016).”
Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life? (2020, background): “…shown that people tend to reject scientific information that threatens their positions, identities or world views, and accept information that coheres with them (Kahan, Jenkins‐Smith, & Braman, 2011; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2017).”
Influencing Climate Change Attitudes in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020, background): “However, it is unlikely that many of the traditional science-based interventions will consist of evidence perceived as strong by conservatives, given their distrust of climate science (Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; Washburn & Skitka, 2018).”
They Might Be a Liar But They’re My Liar: Source Evaluation and the Prevalence of Misinformation (2019, background): “Some argue that there are meaningful psychological differences between the left and the right (Jost, 2017), and others suggest that the rejection of well-established scientific propositions is mainly found on the political right (Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016).”
Tribalism Is Human Nature (2019, background): “…motivated to reject anthropogenic climate change than liberals, likely because a belief in climate change seems to support government regulation and more centralization and hurts the fossil fuel industry, an important part of the Republican base in the United States (Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016).”
Attitudes Towards Science (2018, background): “…climate change; vaccine skepticism; Bain, Hornsey, Bongiorno, & Jeffries, 2012; Blancke, Van Breusegem, De Jaeger, Braeckman, & Van Montagu, 2015; Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016; Rutjens, Sutton, & van der Lee, 2017; Scott, Inbar, & Rozin, 2016), but also from the perceived motivations and…”
Inoculation theory in the post‐truth era: Extant findings and new frontiers for contested science, misinformation, and conspiracy theories (2021, background): “The majority of inoculation research has relied on so‐called “passive refutations” in which both the counter‐ arguments as well as the refutations are provided for the recipient—usually in the form of a conventional persuasive article (Lewandowsky & van der Linden, 2021).”
Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior (2018, background): “Given the inefficacy of rational, evidenced-based appeals for oppositional audiences (e.g., Lewandowsky & Oberauer, 2016), recent research has ven-tured away from this “cognitive bias,” investigating the utility of emotional appeals in persuasion (e.g., Cooper & Nisbet, 2016; Nabi, 2007, 2015).”