Comparing climate science misconceptions with worldview and cognitive reflection suggests poor understanding and motivated reasoning among undergraduates

Author(s):  
Jennifer A. da Rosa
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Merkley ◽  
Dominik Stecula

Americans polarized on climate change despite decreasing uncertainty in climate science. Explanations focused on organized climate skeptics and ideologically driven motivated reasoning are likely insufficient. Instead, Americans may have formed their attitudes by using party elite cues. We conduct analyses on over 8,000 print, broadcast, and cable news stories. We find that coverage became increasingly partisan as climate change rose in salience, but climate skeptics received scant attention. Democratic messages were more voluminous and consistently pro–climate science, while Republican messages have been scarcer and ambiguous until recently. This suggests Republican voters took cues from Democratic elites to reject climate science.


Author(s):  
Adrian Bardon

It is a striking—yet all too familiar—fact about human beings that our belief-forming processes can be so distorted by fears, desires, and prejudices that an otherwise sensible person may sincerely uphold false claims about the world in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When we describe someone as being “in denial,” we mean that he or she is personally, emotionally threatened by some situation—and consequently has failed to assess the situation properly according to the evidence. People in denial engage in motivated reasoning about their situation: They (sincerely) argue and interpret evidence in light of a preestablished conclusion. One significant type of reason-distorting emotional threat is a threat to one’s ideological worldview. When group interests, creeds, or dogmas are threatened by unwelcome factual information, biased thinking becomes ideological denialism. (One critical example of such denialism is the widespread denial of settled climate science.) Denial can stand in the way of individual well-being, and ideological denialism can stand in the way of good public policy. This book is a wide-ranging examination of denial and denialism. It offers a readable overview of the social psychology of denial, and examines the role of ideological denialism in conflicts over public policy, politics, and culture. Chapters focus on our philosophical and scientific understanding of denial, denial of scientific consensus, denialism in political economy, and denialism in religious belief. An afterword examines proposals for improving science communication in light of findings about motivated reasoning and denial.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Erlich ◽  
Calvin Garner ◽  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
David Gertler Rand

Ukraine has been the target of a long-running Russian disinformation campaign. We investigate susceptibility to this pro-Kremlin disinformation from a cognitive science perspective. Is greater analytic thinking associated with less belief in disinformation, as per classical theories of reasoning? Or does analytic thinking amplify motivated reasoning, such that analytic thinking is associated with more polarized beliefs (and thus more belief in pro-Kremlin disinformation among pro-Russia Ukrainians)? In online (N=1,974) and face-to-face representative (N=9,474) samples of Ukrainians, we find support for the classical reasoning account. Analytic thinking, as measured using the Cognitive Reflection Test, was associated with greater ability to discern truth from disinformation – even for Ukrainians who are strongly oriented towards Russia. We found similar, albeit somewhat weaker, results when operationalizing analytic thinking using the self-report Active Open-minded Thinking scale. These results demonstrate a similar pattern to prior work using American participants. Thus, the positive association between analytic thinking and the ability to discern truth versus falsehood generalizes to the qualitatively different information environment of post-communist Ukraine. Despite low trust in government and media, weak journalistic standards, and years of exposure to Russian disinformation, Ukrainians who engage in more analytic thinking are better able to tell truth from falsehood.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bastien Trémolière ◽  
Hakim Djeriouat

The issue of climate change has become central in recent years as alarming data accumulate. It nevertheless has its critics, consisting of people denying climate change orminimizing the responsibility of human beings in the process. This skepticism partly derives from the complexity of the topic, encouraging people to rely on cognitive shortcuts to grasp the phenomenon. We question the role of cognitive reflection, general and climate changerelated knowledge, overconfidence, and political partisanship (plus additional expected confounding variables) in this process through a package of three studies (total N = 1031). In a first study, we showed that an intuitive mindset predicted greater skepticism relative to an analytical mindset while controlling for cognitive ability and the degree to which individuals value science, suggesting that cognitive sophistication and trust are two key parameters of climate change skepticism. A second study highlighted that climate science knowledge and knowledge overconfidence stood out as strong and independent predictors of skepticism relative to cognitive reflection. A final study revealed that cognitive reflection and climate change knowledge generated less influence on climate change skepticism among conservatives than among liberals and moderates, suggesting that reliance on deliberative thinking and knowledgeability on climate science are not sufficient to mitigate climate change skepticism among conservatives. We discuss the critical interplay between cognitive processes and political partisanship in this ongoing debate.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Fischer ◽  
Nadia Said ◽  
Markus Huff

A substantial literature demonstrates public polarization over climate change, particularly among the science literate. The dominant explanation for this phenomenon is that science literacy amplifies directional motivated reasoning, the tendency to interpret evidence such that it confirms desired conclusions. However, the evidence regarding this biasing account of science literacy is inconclusive. The present study tests the biasing account of science literacy in a national survey experiment among the U.S. population. Although results replicated the typical correlational pattern of political polarization as a function of science literacy, results delivered little support for the core causal claim of the biasing account—that science literacy drives motivated reasoning, and  polarized belief-updating. First, results delivered little evidence that science literacy amplified motivated reasoning, despite strong motivated reasoning effects. And second, results delivered little evidence that science literacy amplified polarized belief-updating. That is, the science literate were polarized, but science literacy was not polarizing. These results help clarify the role of science literacy for public beliefs about contested science.


2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek ◽  
Przemysław Sawicki

Abstract. In this work, we investigated individual differences in cognitive reflection effects on delay discounting – a preference for smaller sooner over larger later payoff. People are claimed to prefer more these alternatives they considered first – so-called reference point – over the alternatives they considered later. Cognitive reflection affects the way individuals process information, with less reflective individuals relying predominantly on the first information they consider, thus, being more susceptible to reference points as compared to more reflective individuals. In Experiment 1, we confirmed that individuals who scored high on the Cognitive Reflection Test discount less strongly than less reflective individuals, but we also show that such individuals are less susceptible to imposed reference points. Experiment 2 replicated these findings additionally providing evidence that cognitive reflection predicts discounting strength and (in)dependency to reference points over and above individual difference in numeracy.


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kilian James Garvey ◽  
Laura Folse ◽  
Crystal Curry

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document