Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts

Abstract

It is considered a myth that non-acceptance of scientific consensus on emotive topics is owing to difficulties processing scientific information and is, instead, owing to belief-associated psychological conflicts, the strongest non-acceptors being highly educated. It has been unclear whether these results from adults explain variation in response to school-level teaching. We studied a cohort of UK secondary school students (aged 14–16) and assessed their acceptance and understanding of evolution. In addition, to address their aptitude for science we assessed their understanding of genetics and their teacher-derived assessment of science aptitude. As both models predict, students with low initial evolution acceptance scores showed lower increases in the understanding of evolution. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this effect is better explained by lack of aptitude: before teaching, students with low acceptance had lower understanding of both evolution and of genetics; the low-acceptance students sat disproportionately in the foundation (rather than higher) science classes; low-acceptance students showed lower increments in the understanding of genetics; and student gain in the understanding of evolution correlated positively with gain in the understanding of genetics. We find no evidence either for a role for psychological conflict in determining response to teaching or that strong rejectors are more commonly of a higher ability. From qualitative data we hypothesize that religious students can avoid psychological conflict by adopting a compatibilist attitude. We conclude that there are students recalcitrant to the teaching of science (as currently taught) and that these students are more likely to not accept the scientific consensus. Optimizing methods to teach recalcitrant students is an important avenue for research.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The relationship between the acceptance of evolution and the understanding of evolution before teaching.
Fig. 2: The stratification of evolution acceptance scores before teaching and teacher-derived classification of student ability (foundation or higher ability).
Fig. 3: Relationship between the change in the understanding of evolution score and the pre-teaching evolution understanding score.
Fig. 4: Normalized gain in evolution understanding owing to teaching is positively correlated with the score in pre-teaching acceptance of evolution.
Fig. 5: Normalized gain in genetics understanding owing to teaching is positively correlated with the score in pre-teaching acceptance of evolution.

References

  1. Sherkat, D. E. Religion and scientific literacy in the United States. Soc. Sci. Quart. 92, 1134–1150 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  2. McKeachie, W. J., Lin, Y.-G. & Strayer, J. Creationist vs. evolutionary beliefs: effects on learning biology. Am. Biol. Teach. 64, 189–192 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. (Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kahan, D. M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 732–735 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Preprint at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/opening-political-mind.pdf.

  6. Steele, C. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 21 (ed. Berkowitz, L.) 261–302 (Academic, New York, 1988).

  7. Nickerson, R. S. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. General. Psychol. 2, 175–220 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dodick, J. & Orion, N. Introducing evolution to non-biology majors via the fossil record: a case study from the Israeli high school system. Am. Biol. Teach. 65, 185–190 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bauer, M. W. The evolution of public understanding of science-discourse and comparative evidence. Sci.Technol. Soc. 14, 221–240 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fischhoff, B. Risk perception and communication unplugged — 20 years of process. Risk Anal. 15, 137–145 (1995).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith, P. J. et al. Parental delay or refusal of vaccine doses, childhood vaccination coverage at 24 months of age, and the health belief model. Public Health Rep. 126, 135–146 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Eveland, W. P. & Cooper, K. E. An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14088–14095 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Joslyn, M. R. & Haider-Markel, D. P. Who knows best? Education, partisanship, and contested facts. Politics Policy 42, 919–947 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Burke, K. L. 8 myths about public understanding of science. American Scientist (9 February 2015).

  16. Raine, L., Funk, C. & Page, D. An Elaboration of AAAS Scientists’ Views (Pew Research Center, 2015); http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2015/07/Report-AAAS-Members-Elaboration_FINAL.pdf.

  17. Lawson, A. E. & Worsnop, W. A. Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 29, 143–166 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams, J. D. Evolution versus creationism: a matter of acceptance versus belief. J. Biol. Educ. 49, 322–333 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mead, R., Hejmadi, M. & Hurst, L. D. Teaching genetics prior to teaching evolution improves evolution understanding but not acceptance. PLoS Biol. 15, e2002255 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Donnelly, L. A., Kazempour, M. & Amirshokoohi, A. High school students’ perceptions of evolution instruction: acceptance and evolution learning experiences. Res. Sci. Educ. 39, 643–660 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rutledge, M. L. & Warden, M. A. Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biology teachers: critical relationships. Am. Biol. Teach. 62, 23–31 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ehrle, E. B. Notes on the teaching of evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 22, 418–419 (1960).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Banet, E. & Ayuso, G. E. Teaching of biological inheritance and evolution of living beings in secondary school. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 25, 373–407 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawson, A. E. & Thompson, L. D. Formal reasoning ability and misconceptions concerning genetics and natural selection. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 25, 733–746 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawson, A. E. & Weser, J. The rejection of nonscientific beliefs about life: effects of instruction and reasoning skills. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 27, 589–606 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Deniz, H., Donnelly, L. A. & Yilmaz, I. Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 45, 420–443 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Woods, C. S. & Scharmann, L. C. High school students’ perceptions of evolutionary theory. E. J. Sci. Edu. 6, http://ejse.southwestern.edu/article/view/7676 (2001).

  28. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9587–9592 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hartigan, J. A. & Hartigan, P. M. The dip test of unimodality. Ann. Stat. 13, 70–84 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nadelson, L. S. & Sinatra, G. M. Shifting acceptance of evolution: promising evidence of the influence of the understanding evolution website. Researcher 23, 13–29 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Berkman, M. B. & Plutzer, E. Defeating creationism in the courtroom, but not in the classroom. Science 331, 404–405 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 133, E835–E842 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E. & Oberauer, K. The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE 8, e75637 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Dixon, R. M. & Jones, J. A. Conspiracist ideation as a predictor of climate-science rejection. Psychol. Sci. 26, 664–666 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Rutledge, M. L. & Sadler, K. C. Reliability of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution (MATE) instrument with university students. Am. Biol. Teach. 69, 332–335 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ethical Guidelines for Education Research (BERA, 2011).

  37. Rutledge, M. L. & Warden, M. A. The development and validation of the measure of acceptance of the theory of evolution instrument. Sch. Sci. Math. 99, 13–18 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Rutledge, M. L. & Sadler, K. C. University students’ acceptance of biological theories — is evolution really different? J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 41, 38–43 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lovely, E. C. & Kondrick, L. C. Teaching evolution: challenging religious preconceptions. Integr. Comp. Biol. 48, 164–174 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bowling, B. V. et al. Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics 178, 15–22 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lewis, J. & Wood-Robinson, C. Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance — do students see any relationship? Int. J. Sci. Educ. 22, 177–195 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Milner and the Evolution Education Trust for funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

L.D.H., M.H. and R.M. devised the programme of work. M.H. and L.D.H. supervised the project. R.M. collected the data. L.D.H. analysed the data. R.M., M.H. and L.D.H. wrote or edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence D. Hurst.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes; Supplementary results; Supplementary Figure 1; Supplementary Tables 1–3; Supplementary References.

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mead, R., Hejmadi, M. & Hurst, L.D. Scientific aptitude better explains poor responses to teaching of evolution than psychological conflicts. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 388–394 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0442-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0442-x

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing