In a national sample of 5087 Spaniards, we examine the prevalence of 10 specific misperceptions over five separate science and health domains (climate change, 5G technology, genetically modified foods, vaccines, and homeopathy). We find that misperceptions about genetically modified foods and general health risks of 5G technology are particularly widespread. While we find that partisan affiliation is not strongly associated with any of the misperceptions aside from climate change, we find that two distinct dimensions of an anti-elite worldview—anti-expert and conspiratorial mindsets—are better overall predictors of having science and health misperceptions in the Spanish context. These findings help extend our understanding of polarization around science beyond the most common contexts (e.g. the United States) and support recent work suggesting anti-elite sentiments are among the most important predictors of factual misperceptions.
AbramsDHoggMA (1990) Social identification, self-categorization and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology1(1): 195–228.
2.
ArvanitoyannisISKrystallisA (2005) Consumers’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards genetically modified foods, based on the “perceived safety vs. benefits” perspective. International Journal of Food Science & Technology40(4): 343–360.
3.
BartelsLM (2002) Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior24(2): 117–150.
4.
ByfordJ (2011) Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Berlin: Springer.
5.
CeccoliSHixonW (2012) Explaining attitudes toward genetically modified foods in the european union. International Political Science Review33(3): 301–319.
6.
DellaPostaD (2020) Pluralistic collapse: The “oil spill” model of mass opinion polarization. American Sociological Review85: 507–536.
7.
DrummondCFischhoffB (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114(36): 9587–9592.
8.
EndersAMUscinskiJEKlofstadCStolerJ (2020) The different forms of covid-19 misinformation and their consequences. The Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review1: 1–20.
9.
FernbachPMLightNScottSEInbarYRozinP (2019) Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour3(3): 251.
10.
FlynnDNyhanBReiflerJ (2017) The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology38(S1): 127–150.
11.
FranksBBangerterABauerMWHallMNoortMC (2017) Beyond “monologicality”? exploring conspiracist worldviews.’Frontiers in Psychology8: 861.
12.
GainesBJKuklinskiJHQuirkPJPeytonBVerkuilenJ (2007) Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics69(4): 957–974.
13.
GarrettRKWeeksBE (2017) Epistemic beliefs’ role in promoting misperceptions and conspiracist ideation. PLoS ONE12(9): e0184733.
14.
GoreisAVoracekM (2019) A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Frontiers in Psychology10: 205.
15.
GuntermannE (2019) Party influence where predispositions are strong and party identification is weak: Assessing citizens’ reactions to party cues on regional nationalism in Spain. Party Politics25(4): 609–620.
16.
HanHBlackburnAMJefticATranTPStoeckliSReiflerJ, et al. (2022) Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset. Epidemiology and Infection150: E167.
17.
HasellAStroudNJ (2020) The differential effects of knowledge on perceptions of genetically modified food safety. International Journal of Public Opinion Research32(1): 111–131.
18.
HasellALyonsBATallapragadaMJamiesonKH (2020) Improving gm consensus acceptance through reduced reactance and climate change-based message targeting. Environmental Communication14(7): 987–1003.
19.
HoggMAReidSA (2006) Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Communication Theory16(1): 7–30.
20.
HornseyMJHarrisEAFieldingKS (2018a) The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology37(4): 307.
21.
HornseyMJHarrisEAFieldingKS (2018b) Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change8(7): 614–620.
22.
HornseyMJHarrisEABainPGFieldingKS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change6(6): 622–626.
23.
HumprechtEEsserFVan AelstP (2020) Resilience to online disinformation: A framework for cross-national comparative research. The International Journal of Press/Politics25(3): 493–516.
24.
JagersJWalgraveS (2007) Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research46(3): 319–345.
25.
JürgensPStarkBMaginM (2020) Two half-truths make a whole? on bias in self-reports and tracking data. Social Science Computer Review38(5): 600–615.
26.
KahanDMPetersEDawsonECSlovicP (2017) Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy1(1): 54–86.
27.
KennedyJ (2019) Populist politics and vaccine hesitancy in western europe: An analysis of national-level data. European Journal of Public Health29(3): 512–516.
28.
KrämerB (2018) Populism, media, and the form of society. Communication Theory28(4): 444–465.
29.
KuklinskiJHQuirkPJJeritJSchwiederDRichRF (2000) Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics62(3): 790–816.
30.
KullSRamsayCLewisE (2003) Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly118(4): 569–598.
31.
LandrumARHallmanWKJamiesonKH (2019) Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environmental Communication13(1): 51–70.
LevenduskyMS (2013) Why do partisan media polarize viewers?American Journal of Political Science57(3): 611–623.
34.
LewandowskySGignacGEOberauerK (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE8(10): e75637.
35.
LinzJJMonteroJR (1999) The party systems of Spain: Old cleavages and new challenges. Working paper, Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investigaciones, Madrid, June.
36.
LoberaJRogero-GarcíaJ (2020) Scientific appearance and homeopathy. Determinants of trust in complementary and alternative medicine. Health Communication36: 1278–1285.
37.
LockwoodM (2018) Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics27(4): 712–732.
38.
LongJA (2017) jtools: Analysis and presentation of social scientific data. R package version 0.9.0. Available at: https://jtools.jacob-long.com
LyonsBAHasellATallapragadaMJamiesonKH (2019) Conversion messages and attitude change: Strong arguments, not costly signals. Public Understanding of Science28(3): 320–338.
41.
LyonsBAMerolaVReiflerJ (2020) Shifting medical guidelines: Compliance and spillover effects for revised antibiotic recommendations. Social Science & Medicine255: 112943.
42.
PennycookGBagoBMcPhetresJ (2023) Science beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. DOI:10.1037/xge0001267.
43.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
MazzoleniGStewartJHorsfieldB (2003) The Media and Neo-populism: A Contemporary Comparative Analysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
45.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29: 473–491.
46.
MerkleyE (2019) Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly84: 24–48.
47.
MottaM (2018) The dynamics and political implications of anti-intellectualism in the united states. American Politics Research46(3): 465–498.
48.
MottaMCallaghanTSylvesterS (2018) Knowing less but presuming more: Dunning kruger effects and the endorsement of anti-vaccine policy attitudes. Social Science & Medicine211: 274–281.
49.
NyhanBReiflerJ (2010) When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior32(2): 303–330.
RigneyD (1991) Three kinds of anti-intellectualism: Rethinking hofstadter. Sociological Inquiry61(4): 434–451.
54.
RutjensBTvan der LeeR (2020) Spiritual skepticism? heterogeneous science skepticism in the netherlands. Public Understanding of Science29(3): 335–352.
55.
RutjensBTSuttonRMvan der LeeR (2018) Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin44(3): 384–405.
56.
SchulzAWirthWMüllerP (2018) We are the people and you are fake news: A social identity approach to populist citizens’ false consensus and hostile media perceptions. Communication Research47: 201–226.
57.
SmithEKMayerA (2019) Anomalous anglophones? contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in english-speaking countries, Western European and post-communist states. Climatic Change152(1): 17–34.
58.
SteenbergenMREdwardsEEDe VriesCE (2007) Who’s cueing whom? Mass-elite linkages and the future of European integration. European Union Politics8(1): 13–35.
59.
StoeckelFCarterCLyonsBAReiflerJ (2022) The politics of vaccine hesitancy in Europe. European Journal of Public Health32: 636–642.
60.
StoeckelFLyonsBReiflerJ (2021) Public misperceptions of European integration in the UK. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties. Epub ahead of print 12 July. DOI:10.1080/17457289.2021.1945612.
61.
SwamiVChamorro-PremuzicTFurnhamA (2010) Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology24(6): 749–761.
62.
TajfelH (1972) Social categorization, English manuscript of la catégorization sociale. In: MoscoviciS (ed.) Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, Vol. 1. Paris: Larousse, pp. 272–302.
63.
TajfelH (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33(1): 1–39.
64.
TorcalMMartiniSOrriolsL (2018) Deciding about the unknown: The effect of party and ideological cues on forming opinions about the european union. European Union Politics19(3): 502–523.
65.
TurnerJC (1975) Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology5(1): 1–34.
66.
UscinskiJEKlofstadCAtkinsonMD (2016) What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly69(1): 57–71.
67.
VeenstraASHossainMDLyonsBA (2014) Partisan media and discussion as enhancers of the belief gap. Mass Communication and Society17(6): 874–897.
68.
WestwoodSJIyengarSWalgraveSLeonisioRMillerLStrijbisO (2018) The tie that divides: Cross-national evidence of the primacy of partyism. European Journal of Political Research57(2): 333–354.
69.
WoodMJDouglasKMSuttonRM (2012) Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science3(6): 767–773.
70.
WunderlichSGattoKA (2015) Consumer perception of genetically modified organisms and sources of information. Advances in Nutrition6(6): 842–851.
71.
YeoSKXenosMABrossardDScheufeleDA (2015) Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 172–191.
Supplementary Material
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.
