Final Proposal

Running head: NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 1

Conservative Cognitive Style, not Right-wing Evangelical Belief, Predicts Negative Attitudes

Towards Science

Christopher R Deraney

Saint Leo University

Author Note

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 2

Abstract

The present studies investigate the relationship between conservative political orientation and

anti-science attitudes. The first study attempted to decrease the backfire effect (Nyhan & Reifler,

2010). Participants were selected randomly to take an online study (n=118). Some of the

participants read the prime, a story about a growing vine, or to read nothing before reading

randomly assigned framing of evolution. Counter to hypotheses, we found no significant effect

for priming or framing, F (1, 116) = 1, 38, p > .05; however, we found a significant interaction

between political views and views on evolution. Study two recruited 250 participants (135

female), to take an online survey to measure attitudes on science, political ideology,

temperament, and religiosity. The Science Attitude Survey (Holler, 1997) and the Fisher

Temperament Inventory (Fisher, et, al., 2015) was applied. A multiple regression was conducted,

and religiosity did not significantly explain the variance observed in anti-science attitudes.

Temperament significantly aligned with conservative thought patterns.

Keywords: Anti-Science attitudes, political ideology, and temperament

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 3

Conservative Cognitive Style, not Right-wing Evangelical Belief, Predicts Negative

Attitudes Towards Science

Theoretical Background

In February 2014, Bill Nye engaged in a debate with Ken Ham from Answers in Genesis.

The topic of the debate was whether creation was a viable model of biological origins. Nye

presented observations found using the scientific method to support his argument. However, Ken

ham used the book of Genesis for his base of his argument. The facts presented by Nye did not

influence Ken Ham, it only made him double down on his beliefs. This phenomenon has been

dubbed the backfire effect (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

The backfire effect happens because people continue to hold an incorrect belief, even

with evidence to the contrary; therefore, instead of accepting the facts, they continue to dismiss

them. Thus, they become entrenched in their faulty thinking, and people with like-minded

thinking tend to group together. A creationist, like Ken Ham, is more likely to support the ideas

and beliefs within his own group over people from other groups, for example, modern

evolutionary biology. Ingroup bias is the predisposition for people to favor people or ideas in

their own group above others (Taifel, 1985).

Ingroup bias causes us to only accept information from within our own group. In order

for us to protect our belief system, we seek out information that endorses our held belief, which

is referred to as confirmation bias (Rajsic, Wilson, & Pratt, 2015). Confirmation bias contributes

to the backfire effect because the new information supports the current perception, so the idea is

excepted. Confirmation bias hinders people from making educated decisions because when

people are established in their beliefs, they do not want to listen to the contrary, thus this

behavior is purely emotional (Rajsic, Wilson, & Pratt, 2015).

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 4

A recent study found that knowledge of evolution predicts level of acceptance of

evolution, even after the researchers controlled for the effects of politics and religion (Weisberg,

Landrum, Metz, & Weisberg, 2018). This study demonstrated that knowledge considerably

influences people’s beliefs on evolution. Of the respondents, 26% reported that they held

creationist views, while 32% of the respondents reported that they accepted naturalistic evolution

(Weisberg, et.al, 2018). Additionally, the researchers found that participants who had high levels

of religious belief, were more likely to not accept evolution, and the same effect was found for

participants, who held politically conservative ideology (Weisberg, et.al, 2018).

Climate change is another scientific finding that is not widely accepted by the general

populace. Of United States adults, only 32% report that they deny that there is a scientific

consensus on climate change (McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Furthermore, only 15% of

conservatives reported that they believe that human activity was the main contributor to climate

change, compared to 79% of liberal Democrats (Funk & Kennedy, 2016). There are many

theoretical perspectives for why conservatives are typically more likely than liberals to deny

climate change and evolution. It is possible that heuristics encourage scientific skepticism

(Eidelman, Crandall, Goodman, & Blanchar, 2012). Low effort thought involves patterns of

thinking that include diminutive time, mindfulness, or understanding (Eidelman, et.al, 2012).

This theory could explain the findings of Weisberg, et.al, 2018.

Another perspective postulates that many conservatives view climate change as a part of

the “liberal agenda” (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2015). This view is consistent with holding an ingroup

bias (Taifel, 1985); consequently, conservatives will favor information regarding evolution and

climate change from other conservative intellectuals. Furthermore, conservatives who deny that

human activity is causing climate change to believe that liberal environmentalists have an agenda

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 5

to appropriate climate change to further their political agenda (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2015).

Climate science has been politicized in the United states because both Democrats and

Republicans have benefited monetarily from the fossil fuel industry (McCright & Dunlap, 2011).

It is important that we operationally define what science denial is. Scientists have been on

the forefront of defending science against misinformation, that has been projected by science

skeptics. The denial about science likely does not have to do with science itself, but it has to do

with strong fears and core personal identity (Rosenau, 2012). Furthermore, Rosenau (2012)

points out that creationists view evolution as an attack on morality, while climate change is

viewed as an attack on free market capitalism and citizen’s rights to make decisions about their

homes. Therefore, science denial is the systematic objection to a scientific theory that is based on

strong fears and personal identity. Science denial is employed to protect a person’s ideological

world view; it is not about science at the core. To illustrate, a creationist objects to evolution

because he wants to protect their view, that humans are moral and not related to animals.

However, a “climate change skeptic” will reject human induced climate change, in order to

protect their right to economic freedom.

There is recent neurological evidence that indicates that there are significant differences

in the cognitive styles of liberals and conservatives on psychometrics (Kanai, Feilden, Firth, &

Rees, 2011). Kanai, et. al, (2011) found that the more likely they were to be liberal, the greater

the chance to have increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex. However, the

more conservative a person was, there was a greater chance they were to have increased volume

of the right amygdala. Furthermore, Kanai, et. al (2011) found that increased gray matter volume

of the right amygdala was significantly correlated with conservatism. The amygdala is the region

of the brain that processes fear, and people who have larger amygdala, are more sensitive to fear

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 6

(Kanai, et. al, 2011). This research suggests that a person with a larger right amygdala is most

likely to be conservative, and this research can explain why science denial is prevalent among

conservative ideology.

Recent research has indicated that brain physiology also affects political attitudes. A

novel personality measure based on brain physiology, called the Fisher Temperament Inventory,

has been associated with a specific neural system (Fisher, Island, Rich, Marchalik, & Brown,

2015). The neural systems that are associated with the Fisher Temperament Inventory are, the

dopamine, serotonin, testosterone, and estrogen/oxytocin system, and the personality dimensions

measured are, curious/energetic, cautious/social norm compliant, analytical/tough-minded, and

prosocial/empathetic (Fisher, et. al, 2015). The authors found that individuals who scored higher

on the cautious/social norm compliant were more likely to be politically conservative, and the

cautious/social norm compliant subtype is related to the serotonin neural system (Fisher, et. al,

2015). The serotonin system is essential for multiple brain functions; for example, sleep,

appetite, sensory processing, motor activity, cognition, and emotion (Bocchio, McHugh,

Bannerman, Sharp, & Capogna, 2016).

The Fisher Temperament Inventory could serve as a proxy for amygdala activity because

the amygdala is modulated by serotonin (Bocchio, et. al, 2016). Hence, if a person scores higher

on the subtest, cautious/social norm compliant, it could indicate that the individual had grater

activity in the amygdala. Serotonin has been implicated in the regulation of fear and anxiety

(Bocchio, et, al, 2016); therefore, this neuropathway might explain why a conservative is more

likely to reject evolution, climate change, and perhaps other science as well. As iterated prior,

science denial is rooted in strong fears and core personal identity (Rosenau, 2012), so its highly

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 7

likely that person who is sensitive to fear, would be more prone to hold negative opinions of

science.

Study 1

Study one was conducted to see if we could decrease the backfire effect (Nyhan &

Reifler, 2010) by attempting to change people’s perceptions of evolution by providing new

information, without forcing the message recipient to give up his or her existing beliefs (Chick et

al., 2015). The hypotheses for study 1 was; if (primed) with an idea, people are more likely to

receive it positively, and if the message is framed in a non-threating way-for example, no loss of

existing knowledge or beliefs, people will be more likely to accept it.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited online through social media (e.g. Facebook and Google plus),

targeting a religious sample; 38% strongly religious, 32% very religious, because evolutionary

theory is often rejected by evangelicals. N=118, (64% female), mean age= 30.60, race: 62%

white, 11% black, 11% Hispanic, 5% other, Asian 4%, Native American 1%, mixed race 6%.

Participants were sent a link that took them to an online Qualtrics experiment. Participants

answered demographic questions and were presented with additional materials and asked to

respond.

Design and materials

A 2 (prime/no prime) by 2 (frame: naturalistic (“inconsistent”) versus consistent

presentation) experiment was conducted through an online survey testing whether priming

people with an idea in a familiar and positive way (description of a branching vine reaching for

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 8

sunlight), and whether framing the idea in a non-threating/theistic way, would increase

receptivity to evolution. Participants were randomly assigned either to read the vine prime or to

read nothing before reading their randomly assigned framing of evolution.

Prime (VINE): Imagine a vine growing in a maze in a box with a clear glass lid, so the sunlight

can come in. The vine survives by growing and following the light from the sun. The sun gives

the plant energy to grow and survive. The vine attaches itself to a point in the maze, and then it

will use its tendrils to climb towards the light; once contact is made, the vine tendril will curl to

hold itself-up. As it grows, another tendril will grow from the original point of origin, until it as

has found the light. This new tendril now shares a common ancestral point, with the one it grew

from. This vine is an example of how life will always find a way—even in the harshest of

environments, some lifeforms will find a way to survive.

Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to read either the typical information about

evolution (part A) or the non-backfire effect information (part B). There was more information in

part A that is directly relevant to the biology of evolution than in part B. Part B included a

section that discussed how evolution can be consistent with religion. After participants were

randomly assigned to prime and framing groups, they answered questions about their attitudes

towards evolution and theistic evolution, the idea that evolution can be consistent with God.

Questions used a 1-5 Likert-type scale, with higher numbers indicating more agreement or trust.

Results

A 2 (prime/no prime) X 2 (consistent/ inconsistent evolution definition) ANOVA was ran

to test the hypothesis that if primed with an idea, people are more likely to receive it positively,

and if the message is framed in a consistent way for example, no loss of existing knowledge or

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 9

beliefs, people will be more likely to accept it. counter to hypotheses, we found no significant

effect for priming or framing, F (1, 116) =1.38, p>.05. To explain our inability to reduce the

backfire effect, performed a multiple regression using one’s own education level, religiosity, and

social political views, which revealed an overall significant equation, F (3,55) =13.67, p<.001.

The strongest predictor of views on evolution was not religiosity (b=.14, p>.05), but social

liberalism, (b=.40, p<.001), followed by one’s own education (b=.40, p<.001). This finding was

unexpected but has interesting implications that shifted focus to political view.

Participants assigned to the no-threat condition expressed greater understanding of

evolution more than those in the traditional condition (p<.05). We also found a significant

interaction, F (1,109) =8.68, p<.01; conservatives reported thinking of theistic evolution more in

the non-threat than threat condition, while liberals showed the opposite effect. Overall, socially

liberal participants reported that they had more positive attitudes (M=4.00) than did social

conservatives (M=3.28) towards evolutionary theory. We found the same liberal/conservative

difference in positivity towards evolution when we only included very or extremely religious

participants (n=76). Further, social liberals (M=4.28) were more likely than conservatives

(M=3.33) to trust scientists as a source of information about evolution, F (1,117) =22.62,

p<.001. Also, social liberals were more likely to trust public schools about evolutionary theory

(M=2.94) compared to social conservatives (M=2.26), F (1,117) =14.73, p<.001, although both

had notably low trust.

Discussion

Given the lack of support for our hypotheses about the backfire effect, and our discovery

that conservatism rather than religiosity resulted in the greatest differences in attitudes, future

work should focus on a socially conservative, rather than religious, sample. Terror Management

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 10

Theory (Greenberg, et al., 1990) might help explain why social conservatives have negative

views of evolution. Evolution challenges many all-or-nothing perspectives (low-effort thought;

Eidelman et al., 2012) and precludes one’s separating humans from other animals or denying

death (Jackson et al., 2016). We may have construct validity issues. Our prime may have not

been effective. We may need to improve it in order to see its’ influence, or priming may simply

not work. Given that our manipulation was based on decreasing religious threat, it is reasonable

that our “non-threat” presentation was ineffective. Also, self-report is also a notorious limitation.

Study 2.

The follow up study was conducted to observe whether we could replicate the effect

between political attitudes and acceptance of evolution. This analysis examined if social

conservatism and temperament are predictors for negative views on science. The Fisher

Temperament Inventory (Fisher, et, al., 2015) was used to measure whether certain temperament

subtypes would predict negative attitudes on science. The subtype cautious/social norm

complaint is correlated with being politically conservative (Fisher, et, al., 2015).

Participants

Participants were recruited online through social media (e.g.: Facebook and Twitter)

targeting a social conservative sample, 38% very conservative, 30% moderate conservative.

N=250 (54% female), mean age 45.50, race/ethnic background, 60% white, 15% black, 16%

Hispanic, 10% mixed race, 5%, Asian, 1%.

Design and Materials

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 11

An online survey was generated to measure participants attitudes on science, political

ideology, temperament, and religiosity. The Science Attitude Survey (Holler, 1997) was used to

measure attitudes on science. The scale used 1= Strongly Agree, 4= Strongly disagree. The

questions asked were, “scientific explanations can be made only by scientists.” The Fisher

Temperament Inventory (Fisher, et, al., 2015) was scaled as 1= strongly disagree, 4= strongly

agree. The questions asked, “I find unpredictable situations exhilarating”. The Social and

Economic Conservatism scale (Everett, 2013), was scored on a 0-100 Likert scale in 10-point

increments. The questions asked, how positive or negative do you feel about these issues, for

example, abortion. The Centrality of Religiosity scale (Huber & Huber, 2012). The questions

asked, “To what extent do you believe that God or Something divine exists”.

Results

A multiple regression was conducted to test our hypothesis, and education, political

attitudes, religious belief, and temperament were used as predictors for anti-science attitudes.

Conservatism was employed as a covariate outcome variable for anti-science attitudes.

Temperament was as expected to be the best predictor for anti-science, followed after by

conservatism. Similar to the results found in study one, religiosity did not significantly explain

the variance that was observed in anti-science attitudes. A Person- r correlation was conducted to

ensure that two variables were not used twice.

Discussion

Now that we have established a significant correlation between conservatism and

temperament with anti-science attitudes, it would be interesting to test in a future experiment,

whether, the Terror Management Theory, the denial of one’s own death, (Greenberg, et al., 1990),

causes a person to reject scientific facts that challenge their beliefs. It is possible that the thought

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 12

of one’s own death might produce negative attitudes on science. Therefore, the rejection of

science is caused by a fear of death, and this would make sense in conservatives, since they are

more sensitive to fear (Kanai, et. al, 2011). It is possible that conservatives use religiousness as a

buffer against their anxiety about death (Soenke, Landau, & Greenberg, 2013). According to

Soenke, et., al (2013), people manage their anxiety about mortality by subscribing to cultural

worldviews, this offers people to see life as important and continuing on after death. Therefore,

possibly, conservatives hold negative attitudes on science because it is perceived as a threat to

their belief in an afterlife.

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 13

References

Chick, C. F., Reyna, V. F., & Corbin, J. C. (2016). Framing Effects Are Robust to Linguistic

Disambiguation: A Critical Test of Contemporary Theory. Journal of Experimental

Psychology. Learning, Memory & Cognition, 42(2), 238-256. doi:10.1037/xlm0000158

Christensen, R., & Knezek, G. (2015). The Climate Change Attitude Survey: Measuring Middle

School Student Beliefs and Intentions to Enact Positive Environmental

Change. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(5), 773-788.

doi:10.12973/ijese.2015.276a

Dhont, K., Hodson, G., & Leite, A. C. (2016). Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and

Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model

(SD-HARM). European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 507-522. doi:10.1002/per.2069

Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., Goodman, J. A., & Blanchar, J. C. (2012). Low-Effort Thought

Promotes Political Conservatism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(6), 808-

820. doi:10.1177/0146167212439213

Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (2016). The Politics of Climate. In Pew Research Center. Retrieved

April 10, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/

Haluza-DeLay, R. (2014). Religion and Climate Change: Varieties in Viewpoints and Practices. Wiley

Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(2), 261-279. doi:10.1002/wcc.268

Hoffarth, M. R., & Hodson, G. (2016). Green on the outside, red on the inside: Perceived

environmentalist threat as a factor explaining political polarization of climate

change. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 40-49. doi:

10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.11.002

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 14

Jylhä, K. M. (2016). Ideological roots of climate change denial: Resistance to change, acceptance

of inequality, or both? (PhD dissertation). Uppsala. Retrieved from http://uu.diva-

portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A945529&dswid=-7924

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. (2007). Culture and Identity-

Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception. Journal of

Empirical Legal Studies, 4(3), 465-505. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007. 00097.x

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among

conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4),

1163-1172. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political

Misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

Rosenau, J. (2012). Science denial: a guide for scientists. Trends in Microbiology, 20(12), 567-569. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.10.002

Weisberg, D. S., Landrum, A. R., Metz, E., & Weisberg, M. (2018, March). No Missing Link:

Knowledge Predicts Acceptance of Evolution in the United States. BioScience, 68(3), 212-

222. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix161

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. In: Worchel, S.

and Austin, W.G., Eds., Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd Edition, Nelson Hall, Chicago,

7-24.

Fisher, H. E., Island, H. D., Rich, J., Marchalik, D., & Brown, L. L. (2015). Four Broad

Temperament Dimensions: Description, Convergent, Validation Correlations, and

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE 15

Comparison with the Big Five. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1098), 1-18.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01098

Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political Orientations Are Correlated with

Brain Structure in Young Adults. Current Biology, 21(8), 677-680.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017

Bocchio, M., McHugh, S. B., Bannerman, D. M., Sharp, T., & Capogna, M. (2016). Serotonin,

Amygdala and Fear: Assembling the Puzzle. Frontiers in Neural Circuits, 10(24), 1-15.

doi:10.3389/fncir.2016.00024

Soenke, M., Landau, M. J., & Greenberg, J. (2013). APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and

Spirituality: Vol. 1. Context, Theory, and Research (Vol. 1, pp. 105-121). Washington, DC: the

American Psychological Association. Doi: 10.1037/14045-005