Public debates about socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change or violent video games) are often accompanied by attacks on the reputation of the involved scientists. Drawing on the social identity approach, we report a minimal group experiment investigating the conditions under which scientists are perceived as non-prototypical, non-reputable, and incompetent. Results show that in-group affirming and threatening scientific findings (compared to a control condition) both alter laypersons’ evaluations of the study: in-group affirming findings lead to more positive and in-group threatening findings to more negative evaluations. However, only in-group threatening findings alter laypersons’ perceptions of the scientists who published the study: scientists were perceived as less prototypical, less reputable, and less competent when their research results imply a threat to participants’ social identity compared to a non-threat condition. Our findings add to the literature on science reception research and have implications for understanding the public engagement with science.
AbramsDHoggMA (1999) Social Identity and Social Cognition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
2.
BarlowFKPaoliniSPedersenAHornseyMJRadkeHRHarwoodJet al. (2012) The contact caveat negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin38(12): 1629–1643.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953
3.
BinderARScheufeleDABrossardDGuntherAC (2011) Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility. Risk Analysis31(2): 324–334.
4.
BliucA-MMcGartyCThomasEFLalaGBerndsenMMisajonR (2015) Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change5: 226–229. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2507
5.
CarpiniMXDCookFLJacobsLR (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science7: 315–344. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
6.
ChaikenSMaheswaranD (1994) Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66(3): 460–473. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460
7.
CorneilleOYzerbytVYRogierABuidinG (2001) Threat and the group attribution error: When threat elicits judgments of extremity and homogeneity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin27(4): 437–446. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201274005
8.
CrawfordMTShermanSJHamiltonDL (2002) Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology83(5): 1076–1094. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.5.1076
9.
De HoogN (2013) Processing of social identity threats: A defense motivation perspective. Social Psychology44(6): 361–372. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000133
10.
DépretEFiskeST (1999) Perceiving the powerful: Intriguing individuals versus threatening groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology35: 461–480. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1380
11.
DiehlM (1990) The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical findings. European Review of Social Psychology1(1): 263–292. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/14792779108401864
FaulFErdfelderELangA-GBuchnerA (2007) G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods39(2): 175–191. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
14.
GilbertGNMulkayMJ (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GregoryJLockSJ (2008) The evolution of “Public Understanding of Science”: Public engagement as a tool of science policy in the UK. Sociology Compass2(4): 1252–1265. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00137.x
16.
GreitemeyerT (2014) I am right, you are wrong: How biased assimilation increases the perceived gap between believers and skeptics of violent video game effects. PLoS ONE9(4): e93440. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093440
17.
GuntherACLiebhartJL (2006) Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication56(3): 449–466. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00295.x
18.
HamiltonDLGiffordRK (1976) Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology12(4): 392–407. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(76)80006–6
19.
HamiltonDLDuganPMTrolierTK (1985) The formation of stereotypic beliefs: Further evidence for distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology48(1): 5–17. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.1.5
20.
HartmannTTanisM (2013) Examining the hostile media effect as an intergroup phenomenon: The role of ingroup identification and status. Journal of Communication63(3): 535–555. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12031
21.
HayesAF (2008) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
22.
HedgesLVOlkinI (1985) Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
LezaunJSonerydL (2007) Consulting citizens: Technologies of elicitation and the mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science16(3): 279–297. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507079371
25.
MachunskyMMeiserTMummendeyA (2009) On the crucial role of mental ingroup representation for ingroup bias and the ingroup prototypicality-ingroup bias link. Experimental Psychology56(3): 156–164. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.3.156
26.
MaierMRothmundTRetzbachAOttoLBesleyJC (2014) Informal learning through science media usage. Educational Psychologist49(2): 86–103. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916215
27.
MortonTHaslamSAPostmesTRyanMK (2006) We value what values us: The appeal of identity-affirming science. Political Psychology27(6): 823–838. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00539.x
28.
NaurothPGollwitzerMBenderJRothmundT (2014) Gamers against science: The case of the violent video games debate. European Journal of Social Psychology44(2): 104–116. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1998
29.
NaurothPGollwitzerMBenderJRothmundT (2015) Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments. PLoS ONE10(2): e0117476. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117476
30.
OppenheimerDMMeyvisTDavidenkoN (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology45(4): 867–872. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
31.
OstromTMSedikidesC (1992) Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin112(3): 536. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.536
32.
OwuamalamCKZagefkaH (2011) Downplaying a compromised social image: The effect of metastereotype valence on social identification: Metastereotyping and social identification. European Journal of Social Psychology41(4): 528–537. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.805
33.
PostmesT (2015) Psychology: Climate change and group dynamics. Nature Climate Change5: 195–196. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2537
34.
PostmesTHaslamSAJansL (2013) A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology52(4): 597–617. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006
35.
RabbieJMSchotJC (1990) Group behavior in the minimal group paradigm: Fact or fiction? In: DrenthPSergeantJTakensR (eds) European Perspectives in Psychology. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 253–263.
36.
RichardsZHewstoneM (2001) Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review5(1): 52–73. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_4
37.
RiekBMManiaEWGaertnerSL (2013) Reverse subtyping: The effects of prejudice level on the subtyping of counterstereotypic outgroup members. Basic and Applied Social Psychology35(5): 409–417. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2013.823616
38.
RisenJLGilovichTDunningD (2007) One-shot illusory correlations and stereotype formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin33(11): 1492–1502. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207305862
39.
RothgerberH (1997) External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions in in-group and out-group homogeneity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73(6): 1206–1212. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1206
40.
RubinMHewstoneMVociA (2001) Stretching the boundaries: Strategic perceptions of intragroup variability. European Journal of Social Psychology31(4): 413–429. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.51
41.
ScheepersDEllemersN (2005) When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology41(2): 192–200. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.002
42.
SchrodtPWittPLTurmanPDMyersSABartonMHJernbergKA (2009) Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ prosocial communication behaviors and students’ learning outcomes. Communication Education58(3): 350–371. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/03634520902926851
43.
SchubertTWOttenS (2002) Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup: Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity1(4): 353–376. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/152988602760328012
44.
SinatraGMKienhuesDHoferBK (2014) Addressing challenges to public understanding of science: Epistemic cognition, motivated reasoning, and conceptual change. Educational Psychologist49(2): 123–138. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.916216
45.
SjöströmASowkaAGollwitzerMKlimmtCRothmundT (2013) Exploring audience judgments of social science in media discourse: The case of the violent video games debate. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications25(1): 27–38. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000077
46.
StarkTHFlacheAVeenstraR (2013) Generalization of positive and negative attitudes toward individuals to outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin39(5): 608–622. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213480890
47.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
48.
SturgisPAllumN (2004) Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690
49.
TajfelH (1970) Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American223(5): 96–102.
50.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, pp. 33–47.
51.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: WorchelSAustinWG (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.
52.
WeberRCrockerJ (1983) Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45(5): 961–977. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961
53.
WelchBL (1947) The generalization of “Student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika34(1–2): 28–35. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/34.1-2.28
54.
WenzelMMummendeyAWeberUWaldzusS (2003) The ingroup as pars pro toto: Projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin29(4): 461–473. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250913
55.
WilderDA (1978) Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology36(12): 1361. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.12.1361
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
