This article looks at how the determinants of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have evolved over the past 50 years. It focuses on several standard explanations of anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes—the role of religiosity, the role of education and knowledge, and the role of political interest—and looks at how their importance has varied over time. Similarly, it examines the role of conservative political opinion on attitudes toward science. To do so, it uses a novel data set that includes eight waves of a survey that were fielded over a period of 49 years in France. While people are more educated, have access to more information, and are less religious, the importance of these factors appears to have diminished over time. At the same time, aggregate trends in anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes are not clear-cut. The article shows that anti-science and science-skeptical attitudes have become more difficult to explain over time.
AkkermanAMuddeCZasloveA (2014) How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies47(9): 1324–1253.
2.
AshwellDJ (2016) The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding of Science25(3): 379–393.
3.
BennettWL (1990) Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication40(2): 103–127.
4.
BennettWL (2017) Press-government relations in a changing media environment. In: KenskiKJamiesonKH (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 249–262.
5.
BickfordDPosaMRCQieLCampos-ArceizAKudavidanageEP (2012) Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation151(1): 74–76.
6.
BlankJMShawD (2015) Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 18–35.
7.
BogertJMBucznyJHarveyJAEllersJ (2024) The effect of trust in science and media use on public belief in anthropogenic climate change: A meta-analysis. Environmental Communication18(4): 484–509.
8.
BolsenTDruckmanJN (2018) Do partisanship and politicization undermine the impact of a scientific consensus message about climate change?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations21(3): 389–402.
9.
BoyD (2012) Attitudes toward science in France: 1972–2005. In: BauerMShuklaRAllumN (eds) The Culture of Science. London: Routledge, pp. 57–72.
10.
BusemeyerMRAbrassartANeziR (2019) Beyond positive and negative: New perspectives on feedback effects in public opinion on the welfare state. British Journal of Political Science51(1): 1–26.
11.
CentolaD (2013) Social media and the science of health behavior. Circulation127(21): 2135–2144.
12.
ChenJWangY (2021) Social media use for health purposes: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(5): e17917.
13.
CinelliMQuattrociocchiWGaleazziAValensiseCMBrugnoliESchmidtAL, et al (2020) The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports10(1): 16598.
14.
DeatonA (1985) Panel data from time series of cross-sections. Journal of Econometrics30(1–2): 109–126.
15.
DouvenI (2018) A Bayesian perspective on Likert scales and central tendency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review25(3): 1203–1211.
16.
EberlJ-MHuberRAMedeNGGreussingE (2023) Populist attitudes towards politics and science: How do they differ?Political Research Exchange5(1): 2159847.
17.
EvansJHEvansMS (2008) Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology34(1): 87–105.
18.
FischhoffBScheufeleDA (2013) The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Suppl. 3): 14031–14032.
19.
FranckRIannacconeLR (2014) Religious decline in the 20th century west: Testing alternative explanations. Public Choice159: 385–414.
20.
GauchatGW (2008) A test of three theories of anti-science attitudes. Sociological Focus41(4): 337–357.
21.
GauchatGW (2023) The legitimacy of science. Annual Review of Sociology49: 263–279.
22.
GelmanAKingGLiuC (1998) Not asked and not answered: Multiple imputation for multiple surveys. Journal of the American Statistical Association93(443): 846–857.
23.
GottliebMDyerS (2020) Information and disinformation: Social media in the COVID-19 crisis. Academic Emergency Medicine27(7): 640.
24.
GrossmanE (2022) Media and policymaking in the digital age. Annual Review of Political Science25: 443–461.
25.
HornseyMJ (2020) Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science29(6): 583–591.
26.
HotezPJ (2020) Anti-science extremism in America: Escalating and globalizing. Microbes and Infection22: 505–507.
27.
HuddyL (2001) From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology22(1): 127–156.
28.
InglehartR (1977) The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
30.
KingGHonakerJJosephAScheveK (2001) Analyzing incomplete political science data: An alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review95(1): 4969.
31.
KnutsenO (1998) The strength of the partisan component of left-right identity: A comparative longitudinal study of left-right party polarization in eight West European countries. Party Politics4(1): 5–31.
32.
LandrumAROlshanskyA (2019) The role of conspiracy mentality in denial of science and susceptibility to viral deception about science. Politics and the Life Sciences38(2): 193–209.
33.
LynchM (2020) We have never been anti-science: Reflections on science wars and post-truth. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society6: 49–57.
34.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly52(2): 155–194.
35.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
36.
MedeNGSchäferMSFüchslinT (2021) The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research33(2): 273–293.
37.
NassiriVLovikAMolenberghsGVerbekeG (2018) On using multiple imputation for exploratory factor analysis of incomplete data. Behavior Research Methods50(2): 501–517.
38.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658(1): 36–66.
ObaSSatoMTakemasaIMondenMMatsubaraKIshiiS (2003) A Bayesian missing value estimation method for gene expression profile data. Bioinformatics19(16): 2088–2096.
41.
OCDE. (2022) Education at a Glance. OCDE Indicators. Paris: OCDE.
42.
Philipp-MullerALeeSWSPettyRE (2022) Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119(30): e2120755119.
43.
RooduijnM (2015) The rise of the populist radical right in Western Europe. European View14(1): 3–11.
44.
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.
Suarez-LledoVAlvarez-GalvezJ (2021) Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: Systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research23(1): e17187.
51.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33(1): 1–39.
52.
ToddAWRussellDW (2004) Missing data: A review of current methods and applications in epidemiological research. Current Opinion in Psychiatry17(4): 315–321.
53.
TrusslerMSorokaS (2014) Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. The International Journal of Press/Politics19(3): 360–379.
54.
TsaoS-FChenHTisseverasingheTYangYLiLButtZA (2021) What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: A scoping review. The Lancet Digital Health3(3): e175–e194.
VosTP (2019) Journalists as gatekeepers. In: Wahl-JorgensenKHanitzschT (eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 90–104.
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.
