This research explored the strategic beliefs that people have about science and the extent to which it can explain moral and immoral behaviors. Although people do not believe that science is able to explain certain aspects of their mind, they might nevertheless accept a scientific explanation for their immoral behaviors if that explanation is exculpatory. In a first study, participants reflected on moral and immoral deeds that they performed or that other people performed. Participants were somewhat skeptic that science can account for people’s behavior—except for when they reflected on the wrongdoings that they committed. Two further studies suggest that strategic belief in science arises because it enables external attributions for the behavior, outside of the wrongdoers’ control. Implications are discussed for science understanding and communication.
AlickeMDSedikidesC (eds) (2011) Handbook of Self-Enhancement and Self-Protection. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2.
AltaySSchwartzMHacquinASAllardABlanckeSMercierH (2022) Scaling up interactive argumentation by providing counterarguments with a Chatbot. Nature Human Behaviour6: 579–592.
3.
AspinwallLGBrownTRTaberyJ (2012) The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths?Science337(6096): 846–849.
BalcetisEDunningD (2013) Considering the situation: Why people are better social psychologists than self-psychologists. Self and Identity12: 1–15.
6.
BergerJ (2019) Signaling can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for green products. Theoretical model and experimental evidence. Journal of Consumer Behaviour18(3): 233–246.
7.
BilewiczMWitkowskaMStefaniakAImhoffR (2017) The lay historian explains intergroup behavior: Examining the role of identification and cognitive structuring in ethnocentric historical attributions. Memory Studies10(3): 310–322.
8.
BoyerPPetersenMB (2018) Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences41: 1–51.
9.
BurgerAMSchulerJEberlingE (2022) Guilty pleasures: Moral licensing in climate-related behavior. Global Environmental Change72: 102415.
10.
CampbellTHKayAC (2014) Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology107: 809–824.
11.
CampbellWKSedikidesC (1999) Self-threat magnifies the self-serving bias: A meta-analytic integration. Review of General Psychology3: 23–43.
12.
ChiuCYHongYYDweckCS (1997) Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology73: 19–30.
13.
CucchiSCavazzaN (2021) More guilty if woman: The role of gender and causal attribution in political scandals’ impact. The Journal of Social Psychology161(2): 173–181.
14.
DockendorffMMercierH (2024) Argument evaluation and production in the correction of political innumeracy. Thinking & Reasoning30(1): 195–217.
15.
DoosjeBBranscombeNR (2003) Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group. European Journal of Social Psychology33(2): 235–248.
16.
DreijerinkLHandgraafMAntonidesG (2021) Rationalizing inconsistent consumer behavior. Understanding pathways that lead to negative spillover of pro-environmental behaviors in daily life. Frontiers in Psychology12: 583596.
17.
EdwardsKSmithEE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 5–24.
18.
FeinbergMWillerR (2015) From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin41(12): 1665–1681.
19.
FieldingKSHornseyMJThaiHATohLL (2020) Using ingroup messengers and ingroup values to promote climate change policy. Climatic Change158(2): 181–199.
20.
GazzanigaMS (2005) The Ethical Brain. New York, NY: Dana Press.
21.
GengLChengXTangZZhouKYeL (2016) Can previous pro-environmental behaviours influence subsequent environmental behaviours? The licensing effect of pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology10: e9.
22.
GholamzadehmirMSparksPFarsidesT (2019) Moral licensing, moral cleansing and pro-environmental behaviour: The moderating role of pro-environmental attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology65: 101334.
23.
GinnJLickelB (2020) A motivated defense of meat: Biased perceptions of meat’s environmental impact. Journal of Social Issues76(1): 54–69.
24.
GottliebSLombrozoT (2018) Can science explain the human mind? Intuitive judgments about the limits of science. Psychological Science29: 121–130.
25.
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.
26.
GriskeviciusVTyburJMVan den BerghB (2010) Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98(3): 392–404.
27.
GudjonssonGHSinghKK (1989) The revised Gudjonsson blame attribution inventory. Personality and Individual Differences10: 67–70.
28.
HamiltonLCHartterJSaitoK (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open5(3): 2158244015602752.
29.
HeathC (1999) On the social psychology of agency relationships: Lay theories of motivation overemphasize extrinsic incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes78: 25–62.
30.
HirschbergerGImhoffRKahnDHankeK (2022) Making sense of the past to understand the present: Attributions for historical trauma predict contemporary social and political attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations25(2): 509–526.
31.
HopeALJonesCRWebbTLWatsonMTKaklamanouD (2018) The role of compensatory beliefs in rationalizing environmentally detrimental behaviors. Environment and Behavior50(4): 401–425.
32.
HornseyMJ (2020) Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science29(6): 583–591.
33.
HornseyMJFieldingKS (2017) Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist72(5): 459–473.
34.
HornseyMJFieldingKS (2020) Understanding (and reducing) inaction on climate change. Social Issues and Policy Review14(1): 3–35.
35.
HouckAMKingASTaylorJB (2024) The effect of experts on attitude change in public-facing political science: Scientific communication on term limits in the United States. Public Understanding of Science. Epub ahead of print 24 April. DOI: 10.1177/09636625241246084.
36.
ImhoffRBilewiczMHankeKKahnDTHenkel-GuembelNHalabiS, et al. (2017) Explaining the inexplicable: Differences in attributions for the Holocaust in Germany, Israel, and Poland. Political Psychology38(6): 907–924.
37.
Iso-AholaSE (2013) Exercise: Why it is a challenge for both the nonconscious and conscious mind. Review of General Psychology17(1): 93–110.
38.
JangSM (2013) Framing responsibility in climate change discourse: Ethnocentric attribution bias, perceived causes, and policy attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology36: 27–36.
39.
KahanDMPetersEDawsonECSlovicP (2017) Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy1: 54–86.
40.
KelmanHCHovlandCI (1953) “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology48(3): 327–335.
41.
KennedyEHHorneC (2019) Do green behaviors earn social status?Socius5: 2378023119836330.
42.
KohlovaMBUrbanJ (2020) Buy green, gain prestige and social status. Journal of Environmental Psychology69: 101416.
43.
KruglanskiAWRavivABar-TalDRavivASharvitKEllisS, et al. (2005) Says who? Epistemic authority effects in social judgment. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology37: 345–392.
44.
KubrichtJRHolyoakKJLuH (2017) Intuitive physics: Current research and controversies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences21: 749–759.
45.
LebowitzMSAppelbaumPS (2017) Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction. International Journal of Social Psychiatry63(8): 717–723.
46.
LewandowskySOberauerK (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science25(4): 217–222.
47.
LuomalaHPuskaPLähdesmäkiMSiltaojaMKurkiS (2020) Get some respect—buy organic foods! When everyday consumer choices serve as prosocial status signaling. Appetite145: 104492.
48.
MataAShermanSJFerreiraMBMendonçaC (2015) Strategic numeracy: Self-serving reasoning about health statistics. Basic and Applied Social Psychology37: 165–173.
49.
MataASimãoCGouveiaR (2020) Science can explain other people’s minds, but not mine: Self-other differences in beliefs about science. Self and Identity: 1–19.
50.
McAuleyEDuncanTERussellDW (1992) Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18: 566–573.
51.
MezulisAHAbramsonLYHydeJSHankinBL (2004) Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin130(5): 711–747.
52.
MillerAGGordonAKBuddieAM (1999) Accounting for evil and cruelty: Is to explain to condone?Personality and Social Psychology Review3: 254–268.
53.
MirescoMJKirmayerLJ (2006) The persistence of mind-brain dualism in psychiatric reasoning about clinical scenarios. American Journal of Psychiatry163(5): 913–918.
54.
MunroGDDittoPH (1997) Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin23: 636–653.
55.
MunroGDMunroCA (2014) “Soft” versus “hard” psychological science: Biased evaluations of scientific evidence that threatens or supports a strongly held political identity. Basic and Applied Social Psychology36: 533–543.
56.
NadelhofferTShepardJNahmiasESripadaCRossLT (2014) The free will inventory: Measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Consciousness and Cognition25: 27–41.
57.
NewmanDLewandowskySMayoR (2022) Believing in nothing and believing in everything: The underlying cognitive paradox of anti-COVID-19 vaccine attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences189: 111522.
58.
NewmanLSBakinaDA (2009) Do people resist social-psychological perspectives on wrongdoing? Reactions to dispositional, situational, and interactionist explanations. Social Influence4: 256–273.
59.
NobletCLMcCoySK (2018) Does one good turn deserve another? Evidence of domain-specific licensing in energy behavior. Environment and Behavior50(8): 839–863.
PettyRECacioppoJTGoldmanR (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41(5): 847–855.
62.
PhelanJCCruz-RojasRReiffM (2002) Genes and stigma: The connection between perceived genetic etiology and attitudes and beliefs about mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills6(2): 159–185.
63.
PornpitakpanC (2004) The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology34(2): 243–281.
64.
PuskaP (2019) Does organic food consumption signal prosociality? An application of Schwartz’s value theory. Journal of Food Products Marketing25(2): 207–231.
65.
PuskaPKurkiSLähdesmäkiMSiltaojaMLuomalaH (2016) Male–male status signaling through favoring organic foods: Is the signaler perceived and treated as a friend or a foe?Psychology & Marketing33(10): 843–855.
66.
RiessMRosenfeldPMelburgVTedeschiJT (1981) Self-serving attributions: Biased private perceptions and distorted public descriptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology41: 224–231.
67.
RussellD (1982) The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42: 1137–1145.
68.
RynesSLColbertAEO’BoyleEH (2018) When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management44: 2995–3010.
69.
ScurichNShnidermanA (2014) The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLoS ONE9(9): e107529.
70.
SedikidesCGaertnerLCaiH (2015) On the panculturality of self-enhancement and self-protection motivation: The case for the universality of self-esteem. Advances in Motivation Science2: 185–241.
71.
ShalviSGinoFBarkanRAyalS (2015) Self-serving justifications: Doing wrong and feeling moral. Current Directions in Psychological Science24(2): 125–130.
72.
ShariffAFGreeneJDKarremansJCLuguriJBClarkCJSchoolerJW, et al. (2014) Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science25(8): 1563–1570.
73.
SimmonsJPNelsonLDSimonsohnU (2018) False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science13(2): 255–259.
SteimerAMataASimãoC (2019) Ascribing meaning to the past: Self–other differences in weighing good and bad deeds. Social Cognition37: 174–196.
78.
TalAWansinkB (2016) Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy. Public Understanding of Science25(1): 117–125.
79.
TamboriniRGrallCPrabhuSHoferMNovotnyEHahnL, et al. (2018) Using attribution theory to explain the affective dispositions of tireless moral monitors toward narrative characters. Journal of Communication68: 842–871.
80.
TamirMJohnOPSrivastavaSGrossJJ (2007) Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology92(4): 731–744.
81.
TiefenbeckVStaakeTRothKSachsO (2013) For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioral energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy57: 160–171.
UrbanJBahníkŠBraun KohlováM (2023) Pro-environmental behavior triggers moral inference, not licensing by observers. Environment and Behavior55: 74–98.
84.
VicenteLBlancoFMatuteH (2023) I want to believe: Prior beliefs influence judgments about the effectiveness of both alternative and scientific medicine. Judgment and Decision Making18: e1.
85.
WeisbergDSLandrumARHamiltonJWeisbergM (2021) Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Understanding of Science30(2): 120–138.
86.
WolskoC (2017) Expanding the range of environmental values: Political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. Journal of Environmental Psychology51: 284–294.
87.
WoodTPorterE (2019) The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior41: 135–163.
88.
WullenkordMCReeseG (2021) Avoidance, rationalization, and denial: Defensive self-protection in the face of climate change negatively predicts pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology77: 101683.
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.
