Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities

Abstract

Given the ethical questions that surround emerging science, this study is interested in studying public trust in scientific and religious authorities for information about the risks and benefits of science. Using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults, we employ regression analysis to better understand the relationships between several variables—including values, knowledge, and media attention—and trust in religious organizations and scientific institutions. We found that Evangelical Christians are generally more trusting of religious authority figures to tell the truth about the risks and benefits of science and technology, and only slightly less likely than non-Evangelicals to trust scientific authorities for the same information. We also found that many Evangelicals use mediated information and science knowledge differently than non-Evangelicals, with both increased knowledge and attention to scientific media having positive impacts on trust in scientific authorities among the latter, but not the former group.

Keywords

media and science public understanding of science science and religion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allum

Sturgis

Tabourazi

Brunton-Smith

(2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science 17(1): 35–54.

Anderson

Scheufele

Brossard

Corley

(2012) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 24(2): 225–237.

Brewer

Ley

(2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication 35(1): 115–137.

Brossard

Nisbet

(2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 19(1): 24–52.

Brossard

Scheufele

Kim

Lewenstein

(2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 546–558.

Burke

Marrapodi

(2010) Pope praises science, but insists god created world. Available at: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/28/pope-praises-science-but-insists-god-created-world/ (accessed 28 October 2010).

Cacciatore

Binder

Scheufele

Shaw

(2012) Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics and the Life Sciences 31(1–2): 36–51.

Cacciatore

Scheufele

Corley

(2011) From enabling technology to applications: The evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science 20(3): 385–404.

Cacciatore

Scheufele

Corley

(2014) Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the internet’s potential for closing them. Public Understanding of Science 23(4): 377–395.

10.

Cash

(2010) Embryonic stem cells: Court decision a threat to science itself. Nature 467(16): 271.

11.

Clément

(2015) Creationism, science and religion: A survey of teachers’ conceptions in 30 countries. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 167(8): 279–287.

12.

Cohen

West

Aiken

(2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Compton

Kaylor

(2013) Inoculating for small pox inoculation objections in Reverand Cooper’s “letter to a friend in a country.” Journal of Communication and Religion 36(1): 92–107.

14.

Dawkins

(2008) The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.

15.

Dobzhansky

(1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher 35(3): 125–129.

16.

Earle

(2010) Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis 30(4): 541–574.

17.

Eveland

Scheufele

(2000) Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication 17(3): 215–237.

18.

Feng

(2010) Embryonic stem cells: Don’t let litigation put research off limits. Nature 467(16): 271.

19.

Fiske

Cuddy

AJC

Glick

(2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11: 77–83.

20.

Gauchat

(2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974–2010. American Sociological Review 77(2): 167–187.

21.

Giberson

Stephens

(2011) The evangelical rejection of reason. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/the-evangelical-rejection-of-reason.html?_r=0 (accessed 17 October 2011).

22.

Goldberg

Niedermeier

Bechtel

Gorn

(2006) Heightened adolescent vigilance toward alcohol advertising to forestall alcohol use. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 25(2): 147–159.

23.

Gould

(1997) Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History 106(2): 16–22.

24.

Green

(2008) Embryo as epiphenomenon: Some cultural, social and economic forces driving the stem cell debate. Journal of Medical Ethics 34(12): 840–844.

25.

Harrison

(1998) The Bible, Protestantism and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Harrison

(2006) The Bible and the emergence of modern science. Science & Christian Belief 18(2): 115–132.

27.

Harrison

(2009) The Bible, Protestantism and the rise of natural science: A rejoinder. Science & Christian Belief 21(2): 155–162.

28.

Iyengar

Hahn

(2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication 59(1): 19–39.

29.

Kahan

Braman

Slovic

Gastil

Cohen

(2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 4(2): 87–90.

30.

Kahan

Jenkins-Smith

Braman

(2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2): 147–174.

31.

Kahlor

Dunwoody

Griffin

(2004) Predicting knowledge complexity in the wake of an environmental risk. Science Communication 26(1): 5–30.

32.

Krauss

(2012) A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New York: Atria Books.

33.

Kunda

(1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108(3): 480–498.

34.

Lee

Scheufele

(2006) The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83(4): 819–834.

35.

Lessne

Didow

Jr (1987) Inoculation theory and resistance to persuasion in marketing. Psychology & Marketing 4(2): 157–165.

36.

McGuire

(1961) The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing defenses. Sociometry 24: 184–197.

37.

Merton

(1938) Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England. Osiris 4: 360–632.

38.

Miller

Pardo

Niwa

(1997) Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Madrid: BBV Foundation.

39.

Myskja

(2009) Rationality and religion in the public debate on embryo stem cell research and prenatal diagnostics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 12(2): 213–224.

40.

National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators (Chapter 7). Available at: http://www.nsf.gov./statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm

41.

Niederdeppe

Gollust

Barry

(2014) Inoculation in competitive framing: Examining message effects on policy preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly 78(3): 634–655.

42.

Nisbet

(2005) Evolution and intelligent design: Understanding public opinion. Geotimes 50(8): 28–33.

43.

Numbers

(2011) Clarifying creationism: Five common myths. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 33(1): 129–139.

44.

Olofsson

Ohman

Rashid

(2006) Attitudes to gene technology: The significance of trust in institutions. European Societies 8(4): 601–624.

45.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1981) Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publisher.

46.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1984) Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research 11(1): 668–672.

47.

Petty

Briñol

Priester

(2009) Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Bryant

Oliver

(eds) Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge, pp. 125–164.

48.

Pew Research Center (2008) Religious groups’ official positions on stem cell research. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/religious-groups-official-positions-on-stem-cell-research/ (accessed 17 July 2008).

49.

Pew Research Center (2012) “Nones” on the rise. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ (accessed 9 October 2012).

50.

Pew Research Center (2015) America’s changing religious landscape. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf (accessed 12 May 2015).

51.

Priest

Bonfadelli

Rusanen

(2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis 23(4): 751–766.

52.

Roco

Bainbridge

(2003) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

53.

Runge

Yeo

Cacciatore

Scheufele

Brossard

Xenos

et al . (2013) Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15(1): 1–11.

54.

Scheufele

Corley

Shih

Dalrymple

(2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology 4(2): 91–94.

55.

Scott

(2006) Creationism and evolution: It’s the American way. Cell 124(3): 449–451.

56.

Sethi

(2012) Synthetic biology raises playing God fears. Available at: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-10-18/science/34554374_1_synthetic-biology-new-genetic-code-scientists (accessed 18 October 2012).

57.

Sjöberg

(2001) Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Analysis 21(1): 189–198.

58.

Sjöberg

(2004) Principles of risk perception applied to gene technology. Embo Reports 5: S47–S51.

59.

Stein

(2010) Presidential commission urges caution on “synthetic biology.” Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121600019.html (accessed 16 December 2010).

60.

Taber

Lodge

(2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755–769.

61.

Taber

Cann

Kucsova

(2009) The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior 31: 137–155.

62.

The Scotsman (2005) Church against technology to create human master race. The Scotsman, 5 April. Available at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/church-against-technology-to-create-human-master-race-1-706607.

63.

Vestal

(2008) Stem cell research at the crossroads of religion and politics. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/ (accessed 17 July 2008).

64.

Wojciszke

Abele

(2008) The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology 38: 1139–1147.

65.

Zaller

(1992) The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.