Abstract
People often reject scientific evidence that is at odds with their previous beliefs. Here, we examine the role of threat in such motivated science rejection and whether affirmations in science communication can effectively reduce threat, thereby alleviating motivated rejection. Across three experimental studies (Ntotal = 2728) set in written interview scenarios about the alleged effects of gender-conscious language (i.e. using language that explicitly accounts for all genders, instead of, e.g. using generic masculine forms), we find consistent evidence for threat, especially autonomy threat, as an important driver for motivated rejection of researchers’ trustworthiness and evidence credibility. Shared value and autonomy affirmations, however, showed less consistent and, if any, very small effects as modulators of motivated science rejection, questioning their practical relevance in science communication.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
