25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The ideological basis of antiscientific attitudes: Effects of authoritarianism, conservatism, religiosity, social dominance, and system justification

      1 , 2
      Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
      SAGE Publications

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Serious concerns about public distrust of scientific experts and the spread of misinformation are growing in the US and elsewhere. To gauge ideological and psychological variability in attitudes toward science, we conducted an extensive analysis of public opinion data based on a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults ( N = 1,500) and a large replication sample ( N = 2,119). We estimated the unique effects of partisanship, symbolic and operational forms of political ideology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and general system justification (GSJ), after adjusting for demographic factors. Multiverse analyses revealed that (a) conservatism and SDO were significant predictors of distrust of climate science in > 99.9% of model specifications, with conservatism accounting for 80% of the total variance; (b) conservatism, RWA, religiosity, (male) sex, (low) education, (low) income, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of skepticism about science in general (vs. faith) in > 99.9% of model specifications; (c) conservatism, RWA, (low) education, and distrust of climate science were significant predictors of trust in ordinary people (over scientific experts) > 99.9% of the time; and (d) GSJ was a significant predictor of trust in scientific experts (over ordinary people) 81% of the time, after adjusting for all other demographic and ideological factors. Implications for the role of science in democratic society are discussed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          The Elements of Statistical Learning

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            An Introduction to Statistical Learning

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification.

              Many have suggested that complementary gender stereotypes of men as agentic (but not communal) and women as communal (but not agentic) serve to increase system justification, but direct experimental support has been lacking. The authors exposed people to specific types of gender-related beliefs and subsequently asked them to complete measures of gender-specific or diffuse system justification. In Studies 1 and 2, activating (a) communal or complementary (communal + agentic) gender stereotypes or (b) benevolent or complementary (benevolent + hostile) sexist items increased support for the status quo among women. In Study 3, activating stereotypes of men as agentic also increased system justification among men and women, but only when women's characteristics were associated with higher status. Results suggest that complementary stereotypes psychologically offset the one-sided advantage of any single group and contribute to an image of society in which everyone benefits through a balanced dispersion of benefits. ((c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
                Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
                SAGE Publications
                1368-4302
                1461-7188
                June 2021
                May 31 2021
                June 2021
                : 24
                : 4
                : 518-549
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Friedrich-Schiller Universität Jena, Germany
                [2 ]New York University, USA
                Article
                10.1177/1368430221990104
                b18fe397-10f4-4018-904f-ae4797662357
                © 2021

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                79
                8
                61
                0
                Smart Citations
                79
                8
                61
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content142

                Cited by30

                Most referenced authors325