Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions


Science deniers question scientific milestones and spread misinformation, contradicting decades of scientific endeavour. Advocates for science need effective rebuttal strategies and are concerned about backfire effects in public debates. We conducted six experiments to assess how to mitigate the influence of a denier on the audience. An internal meta-analysis across all the experiments revealed that not responding to science deniers has a negative effect on attitudes towards behaviours favoured by science (for example, vaccination) and intentions to perform these behaviours. Providing the facts about the topic or uncovering the rhetorical techniques typical for denialism had positive effects. We found no evidence that complex combinations of topic and technique rebuttals are more effective than single strategies, nor that rebutting science denialism in public discussions backfires, not even in vulnerable groups (for example, US conservatives). As science deniers use the same rhetoric across domains, uncovering their rhetorical techniques is an effective and economic addition to the advocates’ toolbox.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: 5 × 5 matrix of rebutting science denialism in public discussions about vaccination.
Fig. 2: Effects of denial and rebuttals on intention to perform a behaviour favoured by science.
Fig. 3: Technique rebuttal and topic rebuttal mitigate the influence of the science denier.
Fig. 4: No evidence that the combination of topic and technique rebuttal is more effective than the single strategies.
Fig. 5: Effect of confidence in vaccination on changes in attitude and intention.
Fig. 6: Effect of political ideology on changes in attitude and intention.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XX2KT)57.

Code availability

The syntax used to analyse the datasets in this study is available from the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XX2KT)57.


  1. 1.

    Vaccines and immunization. World Health Organization http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/disease-prevention/vaccines-and-immunization/vaccines-and-immunization/vaccine-quality,-efficacy-and-safety (2018).

  2. 2.

    Causes of Climate Change Climate Action. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes_en (European Commission, 2018).

  3. 3.

    Teaching of Evolution: Fact and Theory https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/education/evolution.html (American Chemical Society, 2017).

  4. 4.

    Carmichael, J. T., Brulle, R. J. & Huxster, J. K. The great divide: understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Clim. Change 141, 599–612 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Mildenberger, M. & Leiserowitz, A. Public opinion on climate change: is there an economy–environment tradeoff? Env. Polit. 26, 801–824 (2017).

  6. 6.

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H. & Cook, J. Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 353–369 (2017).

  7. 7.

    Chigwedere, P., Seage, G. R., Gruskin, S., Lee, T.-H. & Essex, M. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 49, 410–415 (2008).

  8. 8.

    Flaherty, D. K. The vaccine-autism connection: a public health crisis caused by unethical medical practices and fraudulent science. Ann. Pharmacother. 45, 1302–1304 (2011).

  9. 9.

    Lewandowsky, S., Ballard, T., Oberauer, K. & Benestad, R. A blind expert test of contrarian claims about climate data. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 91–97 (2016).

  10. 10.

    Björnberg, K. E., Karlsson, M., Gilek, M. & Hansson, S. O. Climate and environmental science denial: a review of the scientific literature published in 1990–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 167, 229–241 (2018).

  11. 11.

    Dunlap, R. E. Climate Change skepticism and denial: An introduction. Am. Behav. Sci. 57, 691–698 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Ziman, J. Is science losing its objectivity? Nature 382, 751–754 (1996).

  13. 13.

    Diethelm, P. & McKee, M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? Eur. J. Public Health 19, 2–4 (2009).

  14. 14.

    Lewandowsky, S. & Oberauer, K. Motivated rejection of science. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 25, 217–222 (2016).

  15. 15.

    Hornsey, M. J. & Fielding, K. S. Attitude roots and jiu jitsu persuasion: understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. Am. Psychol. 72, 459–473 (2017).

  16. 16.

    Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. M. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465, 686–687 (2010).

  17. 17.

    Betsch, C. Advocating for vaccination in a climate of science denial. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 17106 (2017).

  18. 18.

    Williamson, P. Take the time and effort to correct misinformation. Nature 540, 171 (2016).

  19. 19.

    Cockrell, M., Dubickas, K., Hepner, M., Ilich, A. & McCarthy, M. Embracing advocacy in science. Fisheries 43, 179–182 (2018).

  20. 20.

    van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S. & Maibach, E. Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Glob. Chall. 1, 1600008 (2017).

  21. 21.

    Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S. & Ecker, U. K. H. Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS One 12, e0175799 (2017).

  22. 22.

    Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N. & Cook, J. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 106–131 (2012).

  23. 23.

    Ecker, U. K. H., Hogan, J. L. & Lewandowsky, S. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction? J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6, 185–192 (2017).

  24. 24.

    Schmid, P., MacDonald, N. E., Habersaat, K. & Butler, R. Commentary to: how to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. Vaccine 36, 196–198 (2018).

  25. 25.

    Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J. & Verser, R. M. A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Commun. Monogr. 70, 335–350 (2003).

  26. 26.

    Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. & Aral, S. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359, 1146–1151 (2018).

  27. 27.

    Seiter, J., Weger, H., Jensen, A. & Kinzer, H. The role of background behavior in televised debates: does displaying nonverbal agreement and/or disagreement benefit either debater? J. Soc. Psychol. 150, 278–300 (2010).

  28. 28.

    Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33, 459–464 (2015).

  29. 29.

    Nyhan, B. & Reifler, J. When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Polit. Behav. 32, 303–330 (2010).

  30. 30.

    Cook, J. & Lewandowsky, S. Rational irrationality: modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Top. Cogn. Sci. 8, 160–179 (2016).

  31. 31.

    Best Practice Guidance: How to Respond to Vocal Vaccine Deniers in Public (World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2016).

  32. 32.

    Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. & Morris, K. J. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 45, 805–818 (1983).

  33. 33.

    Friestad, M. & Wright, P. The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. J. Consum. Res. 21, 1–31 (1994).

  34. 34.

    Pornpitakpan, C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 243–281 (2004).

  35. 35.

    Chaiken, S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39, 752–766 (1980).

  36. 36.

    Hronikx, J. A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Stud. Commun. Sci. 5, 205–216 (2005).

  37. 37.

    Allen, M. Meta‐analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one‐sided and two‐sided messages. West. J. Speech Commun. 55, 390–404 (1991).

  38. 38.

    O’Keefe, D. J. How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: a meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 22, 209–249 (1999).

  39. 39.

    Cook, J. & Lewandowsky, S. The Debunking Handbook (University of Queensland, 2011).

  40. 40.

    Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 19, 123–205 (1986).

  41. 41.

    Eisend, M. Understanding two-sided persuasion: an empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychol. Market. 24, 615–640 (2007).

  42. 42.

    Sheeran, P. et al. The impact of changing attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol. 35, 1178–1188 (2016).

  43. 43.

    O’Keefe, D. J. Persuasion: Theory and Research (Sage, 2002).

  44. 44.

    O’Keefe, D. J. Message generalizations that support evidence-based persuasive message design: specifying the evidentiary requirements. Health Commun. 30, 106–113 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A. & Rosenthal, R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 10, 535–549 (2016).

  46. 46.

    Baguley, T. Standardized or simple effect size: what should be reported? Br. J. Psychol. 100, 603–617 (2009).

  47. 47.

    Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S. & West, S. G. The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivar. Behav. Res. 34, 315–346 (1999).

  48. 48.

    Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P. & Licata, L. Detecting outliers: do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 764–766 (2013).

  49. 49.

    Anderson, T Communicating science-based messages on vaccines. Bull. World Health Organ. 95, 670–671 (2017).

  50. 50.

    van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A. & Maibach, E. Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 2–3 (2018).

  51. 51.

    Cook, J., Maibach, E., van der Linden, S. & Lewandowsky, S. The Consensus Handbook (Climate Change Communication, 2018).

  52. 52.

    Nsangi, A. et al. Effects of the informed health choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 390, 374–388 (2017).

  53. 53.

    Sheeran, P. Intention—behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 12, 1–36 (2002).

  54. 54.

    Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F. & Sances, M. W. Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 58, 739–753 (2014).

  55. 55.

    Oreskes, N. Beware: transparency rule is a Trojan horse. Nature 557, 469 (2018).

  56. 56.

    EFS Survey, v. Spring 2016–Winter 2018 (Questback GmbH, 2016).

  57. 57.

    Schmid, P. & Betsch, C. Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Preprint at OSF https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XX2KT (2019).

  58. 58.

    Sedgwick, P. Meta-analyses heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. BMJ 346, f4040 (2013).

Download references


The authors thank B. Wippert, T. Steinke, J. Gerlach and M. Schwarzer for their help collecting the data and developing the stimulus material and L. Korn for support visualizing Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2. The authors are also grateful for the valuable input from K. Habersaat. Parts of the study were funded by grants to C.B. from the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) via the interdisciplinary and trans-sectoral consortium InfectControl2020 to the University of Erfurt (no. 03ZZ0819A) and the German Research Foundation to C.B. (no. BE3970/11-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. No other funding bodies were involved.

Author information

Both authors substantially contributed to this article. P.S. and C.B. developed and designed the study, conducted the analyses and wrote the Article and Supplementary Information. P.S. visualized and curated the data. C.B. secured the funding.

Correspondence to Philipp Schmid.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Primary Handling Editor: Aisha Bradshaw.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, Supplementary References, Supplementary Figures 1–4, and Supplementary Tables 1–17.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Further reading