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.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts

Nature Human Behaviour volume 2, pages 2–3 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor — In light of the continued politicization of facts on critical societal issues, developing ways to effectively communicate with the public about scientific topics is becoming increasingly important1,2. We commend recent behavioural science research for tackling a question that is of paramount interest to this debate: do individuals with more education and science literacy display more polarized beliefs on highly contested issues, such as climate change? Several recent correlational studies3,4 have suggested this, concluding that more education and science literacy may actually increase rather than decrease polarization on issues linked to political and religious identities.

Thus, these findings suggest that communicating facts does not necessarily cause issue polarization. Indeed, although higher educated individuals may engage in more motivated reasoning, this effect can largely be countered with accurate information about the state of scientific agreement. Furthermore, instead of trying to change deep-rooted beliefs about contested issues, it may be easier to correct people’s perception of the norm6,7, as societal norms help set standards against which people evaluate the appropriateness of their beliefs and behaviours. Importantly, as a group, scientists are viewed as non-partisan8. In other words, correcting people’s perception of the scientific norm can help depolarize ideological worldviews and neutralize motivated cognition. In short, we caution against the conclusion that communicating facts about contested issues is necessarily ‘polarizing’3,4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Highlighting scientific norms depolarizes judgements about climate change.

References

  1. Druckman, J. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 615–617 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 0116 (2017).

  3. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9587–9592 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Kahan, D. M. et al. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 732–735 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McCright, A. & Dunlap, R. Environ. Sci. Policy 50, 26–35 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cialdini, R. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (HarperCollins, New York, NY, 1984).

  7. Tankard, M. E. & Paluck, E. L. Psychol. Sci. 28, 1334–1344 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kennedy, B. & Funk, C. Majority of Americans say scientists don’t have an ideological slant. Fact Tank http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/09/majority-of-americans-say-scientists-dont-have-an-ideological-slant/ (9 November 2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Fischhoff for his helpful feedback and comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. We also thank S. Rosenthal, M. Mildenberger, B. Zhang and J. Marlon for their help with the survey design and data collection. The study was supported by funding from the MacArthur, Grantham and Energy foundations. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Sander van der Linden

  2. Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA

    Anthony Leiserowitz

  3. Center for Climate Change Communication, Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Edward Maibach

Authors
  1. Sander van der Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Leiserowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edward Maibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.V.L. and A.A.L. designed the study and collected the data. S.V.L. performed the statistical analyses with input from A.A.L. and wrote a first draft of the manuscript. E.W.M., A.A.L and S.V.L. all contributed to the writing and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sander van der Linden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1-2, Supplementary Figures 1-4, Supplementary References 1-6

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Life Sciences Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Linden, S.v., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat Hum Behav 2, 2–3 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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