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.

COMMUNICATION SCIENCE

Countering science denial

Nature Human Behaviour volume 3, pages 889–890 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

As the spectre of ‘post-truth’ looms over society, an important question remains: how to effectively respond to the growing climate of science denial? New research shows that leaving denial unanswered can have negative consequences. Fortunately, countering science deniers can reduce their influence, even among those most likely to hold anti-scientific beliefs.

Writing in Nature Human Behaviour, Schmid and Betsch4 address this concern and present six studies that jointly illustrate how science advocates can effectively rebut science denial in public. The authors start their investigation by delineating a key difference between healthy scepticism about science—a process which usually involves updating one’s beliefs in light of new evidence—versus science denial, which is commonly thought to be the result of the motivated rejection of science. In other words, people may be motivated to update their beliefs only when the evidence confirms what they already want to believe.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Measles cases and outbreaks. CDC.gov https://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019).

  3. Nature 467, 133 (2010).

  4. Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Nat. Hum. Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4 (2019).

  5. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S. & Freed, G. L. Pediatrics 133, e835–e842 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood, T. & Porter, E. Polit. Behav. 41, 135–163 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Druckman, J. & McGrath, M. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 111–119 10 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roozenbeek, J. & van der Linden, S. J. Risk Res. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1443491 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., Cook, J., Leiserowitz, A. & Lewandowsky, S. Science 358, 1141–1142 (2017).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Sander van der Linden

Authors
  1. Sander van der Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sander van der Linden.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Linden, S. Countering science denial. Nat Hum Behav 3, 889–890 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0631-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0631-5

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