Building Public Support for Science Spending

Abstract

While most Americans support scientific research, few favor an increase in federal investment. This opposition is driven in large part by misinformation about the actual level of governmental support for science. Employing an experiment embedded on a nationally representative survey, we find that most Americans significantly overestimate the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research. Correcting this misperception significantly increases support for additional science spending. We find little evidence that subjects engage in motivated reasoning when confronted with this correction. Information about the low level of existing funding increased support for investment in science across partisan and ideological divides.

Keywords

public opinion science budget misinformation survey experiment motivated reasoning federal government

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ansolabehere

Konisky

D. M.

(2009). Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 566-577.

Ansolabehere

Rivers

(2013). Cooperative survey research. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 307-329.

Bartels

L. M.

(1991). Constituency opinion and congressional policy making: The Reagan defense buildup. American Political Science Review, 85, 457-474.

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 79-95.

Besley

J. C.

(2013). The state of public opinion research on attitudes and understanding of science and technology. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 12-20.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

Cook

F. L.

(2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262.

Bonica

(2015). Measuring public spending preferences using an interactive budgeting questionnaire. Research & Politics, 2(2), 1-9.

Brewer

P. R.

Ley

B. L.

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

Burstein

(2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29-40.

10.

Cable News Network. (2011, March). CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll [survey question]. USORC.040111.R39A. Opinion Research Corporation [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor].

11.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shaw

B. R.

(2012). Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. Energy Policy, 51, 673-682.

12.

Carlisle

J. E.

Feezell

J. T.

Michaud

K. E.

Smith

E. R.

Smith

(2010). The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 514-527.

13.

CBS News. (2010, December). CBS News Poll [survey question]. USCBS.201012A.Q16. CBS News [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor].

14.

Clarke

C. E.

Hart

P. S.

Schuldt

J. P.

Evensen

D. T.

Boudet

H. S.

Jacquet

J. B.

Stedman

R. C.

(2015). Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy, 81, 131-140.

15.

Delli Carpini

M. X.

Keeter

. (1997). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

16.

Delshad

Raymond

(2013). Media framing and public attitudes toward biofuels. Review of Policy Research, 30, 190-210.

17.

Druckman

J. N.

Bolsen

(2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688.

18.

Dunlap

R. E.

Xiao

McCright

A. M.

(2001). Politics and environment in America: Partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics, 10(4), 23-48.

19.

European Commission. (2010). Special Eurobarometer 340: Science and technology. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf

20.

Feldman

Maibach

E. W.

Roser-Renouf

Leiserowitz

(2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics, 17, 3-31.

21.

Fisher

(2013, November 11). The Republican party isn’t really the anti-science party. Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/

22.

Funk

Rainie

(2015a, January 29). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

23.

Funk

Rainie

(2015b, July 1). Americans, politics and science issues. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/

24.

Gauchat

(2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 751-770.

25.

Gauchat

(2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187.

26.

Geer

J. G.

(1996). From tea leaves to opinion polls: A theory of democratic leadership. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

27.

Goldfarb

J. L.

Buessing

Kriner

D. L.

(2016). Geographic proximity to coal plants and US public support for extending the Production Tax Credit. Energy Policy, 99(C), 299-307.

28.

Gross

A. G.

(1994). The roles of rhetoric in the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 3-23.

29.

Hart

P. S.

Nisbet

E. C.

(2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723.

30.

Hartley

Russett

(1992). Public opinion and the common defense: Who governs military spending in the United States? American Political Science Review, 86, 905-915.

31.

Heath

Gifford

(2006). Free-market ideology and environmental degradation: The case of belief in global climate change. Environment & Behavior, 38, 48-71.

32.

Henry

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2012, February). Kaiser US Role in Global Health Survey [survey question]. USPSRA.12GLOBEH.R04. Princeton Survey Research Associates International [producer]. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, iPOLL [distributor].

33.

Hmielowski

J. D.

Feldman

Myers

T. A.

Leiserowitz

Maibach

(2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 866-883.

34.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192.

35.

Hourihan

Parkes

(2016). Guide to the president’s budget: Research and development FY2017. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS%20R%26D%20Report%20FY17%20web.pdf

36.

Jacoby

W.G.

(1994). Public attitudes toward government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 336-361.

37.

Kahan

D. M.

(2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424.

38.

Klick

Smith

E. R.

(2010). Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States. Renewable Energy, 35, 1585-1591.

39.

Kloor

(2012, September 26). GMO opponents are the climate skeptics of the left. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html

40.

Kraft

P. W.

Lodge

Taber

C. S.

(2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 121-133.

41.

Lewandowsky

Oberauer

Gignac

G. E.

(2013). NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore, (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24, 622-633.

42.

Lupia

(1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 1, 63-76.

43.

Malka

Krosnick

J. A.

Langer

(2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.

44.

McCright

A. M.

Dentzman

Charters

Dietz

(2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044029.

45.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194.

46.

Miller

J. D.

(1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29-48.

47.

Miller

J. D.

(1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223.

48.

Miller

J. D.

(2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.

49.

Miller

(2001). Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 115-120.

50.

Milner

H. V.

Tingley

(2013). Public opinion and foreign aid: A review essay. International Interactions, 39, 389-401.

51.

MIT Committee to Evaluate the Innovation Deficit. (2015). The future postponed: Why declining investment in basic research threatens a U.S. innovation deficit. Retrieved from https://dc.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Future%20Postponed.pdf

52.

Monroe

A. D.

(1998). Public opinion and public policy, 1980-1993. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 6-28.

53.

Mooney

(2006). The Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.

54.

Mooney

(2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—and reality. New York, NY: Wiley.

55.

Myers

T. A.

Maibach

Peters

Leiserowitz

(2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120985.

56.

Nam

H. H.

Jost

J. T.

Van Bavel

J. J.

(2013). “Not for All the Tea in China!” Political ideology and the avoidance of dissonance-arousing situations. PloS one, 8(4), e59837.

57.

National Science Board. (2016). Science & engineering indicators 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf

58.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 90-112.

59.

Nisbet

M. C.

Goidel

R. K.

(2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic–survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421-440.

60.

Norman

(2016, June 13). American’s confidence in institutions stays low. Gallup. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/192581/americans-confidence-institutions-stays-low.aspx

61.

Nyhan

Reifler

(2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.

62.

Oreskes

Conway

E. M.

(2010). Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature, 465, 686-687.

63.

Page

B. I.

Shapiro

R. Y.

(1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77, 175-190.

64.

Petrocik

J. R.

(2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28, 562-572.

65.

Pielke

R. A.

Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

66.

Plumer

(2013, February 26). The coming R&D crash. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/26/the-coming-rd-crash/?utm_term=.e321eb24c335

67.

Sanz-Menéndez

Van Ryzin

G. G.

del Pino

(2014). Citizens’ support for government spending on science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 41, 611-624.

68.

Science scorned. (2010). Nature, 467, 133. doi:10.1038/467133a

69.

Stimson

J. A.

MacKuen

M. B.

Erikson

R. S.

(1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89, 543-565.

70.

Sturgis

Allum

(2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.

71.

Suhay

Druckman

J. N.

Nisbet

E. C.

Cooper

K. E.

Garrett

R. K.

(2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36-66.

72.

Wlezien

(1996). Dynamics of representation: The case of US spending on defence. British Journal of Political Science, 26, 81-103.

73.

Wlezien

(2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. Journal of Politics, 66, 1-24.

74.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

75.

Zhao

Rolfe-Redding

Kotcher

J. E.

(2014). Partisan differences in the relationship between newspaper coverage and concern over global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 543-559.