“You End Up Feeling Like the Rest of the World Is Kind of Picking on You”: Perceptions of Regulatory Science’s Threats to Economic Livelihoods and Idahoans’ Collective Identity

Abstract

This article contributes to research on public attitudes toward science, specifically science distrust, by analyzing responses from focus group interviews conducted in the U.S. state of Idaho. Idahoans share a collective cultural identity that values self-sufficiency, independence, and conservative suspicion of government. Content analysis of focus group transcripts from 12 urban and rural communities across Idaho show that regulatory science evokes the highest levels of distrust among participants, as they threaten economic livelihoods and Idahoans’ collective identification with independence and the industries on which Idaho’s economy was built.

Keywords

science attitudes science and culture science distrust regulatory science

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aiken

(2014). Idiosyncrasy and enigma: Idaho politics. In Sowards

A. M.

(Ed.), Idaho’s place: A new history of the gem state (pp. 76-104). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Arrington

L. J.

(1994). History of Idaho (Vol. 2). Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho Press.

Bak

(2001). Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the ‘deficit model’ of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 779-795.

Baker

J. O.

(2012a). Perceptions of science and American secularism. Sociological Perspectives, 55, 167-188.

Baker

J. O.

(2012b). Public perceptions of incompatibility between “science and religion.” Public Understanding of Science, 21, 340-353.

Bernick

(2016, September 25). Survey research: Idahoans don’t trust federal government institutions. Idaho Politics Weekly. Retrieved from http://idahopoliticsweekly.com/politics/1251-survey-research-idahoans-don-t-trust-federal-government-institutions

Bigley

G. A.

Pearce

J. L.

(1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405-421.

Billig

(1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Blank

J. M.

Shaw

(2015). Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 18-35.

10.

Blank

R. H.

(1978). Regional diversity of political values: Idaho political culture. Washington, DC: University Press of America.

11.

Blank

R. H.

(1988). Individualism in Idaho: The territorial foundations. Pullman: Washington State University Press.

12.

Boag

(1997). Mountain, plain, desert, river: The snake river region as a western crossroads. In Wrobel

D. M.

Steiner

M. C.

(Eds.), Many wests: Place, culture, and regional identity (pp. 177-204). Lawrence, University of Kansas Press.

13.

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.

14.

Brossard

Nisbet

(2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 24-52.

15.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Kim

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.

16.

Bsumek

P. K.

Schneider

Schwarze

Peeples

(2014). Corporate ventriloquism: Corporate advocacy, the coal industry, and the appropriation of voice. In Peeples

Depoe

(Eds.), Voice and environmental communication (pp. 21-43). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

17.

Collins

H. M.

(1987). Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17, 689-713.

18.

Cortassa

(2016). In science communication, why does the idea of a public deficit always return? The eternal recurrence of the public deficit. Public Understanding of Science, 25, 447-459.

19.

Cummings

L. L.

Bromiley

(1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In Kramer

R. M.

Tyler

T. R.

(Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Cunningham-Burley

Kerr

Pavis

(1999). Theorising subjects and subject matter in focus group research. In Barbour

R. S.

Kitzinger

(Eds.), Developing focus group research (pp. 186-199). London, England: Sage Publications.

21.

Davies

S. R.

Kearnes

M. B.

Macnaghten

P. M.

(2009). “All things weird and scary”: Nanotechnology, theology and cultural resources. Culture and Religion, 10, 201-220.

22.

Einsiedel

Thorne

(1999). Public responses to uncertainty. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43-5). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

23.

Engdahl

Lidskog

(2014). Risk, communication and trust: Toward an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 703-717.

24.

Evans

Durant

(1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 57-74.

25.

Evans

M. S.

(2012). Supporting science: Reasons, restrictions, and the role of religion. Science Communication, 34, 334-362.

26.

Fisher

P. I.

(2016). State political culture and support for Donald Trump. Political Science & Politics, 49, 743-747.

27.

Forbes

(1955). Dynamics of Idaho politics 1920-1932 (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow.

28.

Gauchat

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

29.

Gauchat

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

30.

Hamilton

L. C.

(2008). Who cares about polar regions? Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40, 671-678.

31.

Hamilton

L. C.

Hartter

Saito

(2015). Trust in scientists’ on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open, 5(3), 1-13. doi:10.1177/2158244015602752.

32.

S. S.

Scheufele

D. A.

Corley

E. A.

(2010). Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 12, 2703-2715.

33.

Hormel

(2014). Focus groups in action: Problems of purposeful sampling and group composition when initiating research from afar (Sage research methods cases). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/978144627305013514664

34.

Hornig

(1992). Framing risk: Audience and reader factors. Journalism Quarterly, 69, 679-690.

35.

Hornig

(1993). Reading risk: Public response to print media accounts of technological risk. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 95-109.

36.

Hornig Priest

. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

37.

Houston

M. J.

Bruskotter

J. T.

Fan

(2010). Attitudes toward wolves in the United States and Canada: A content analysis of the print news media, 1999-2008. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15, 389-403.

38.

Idaho Dairymen’s Association. (2014). Idaho dairy industry overview. Twin Falls: ID: Agricultural Industry Air Quality Task Force.

39.

Idaho Department of Commerce and Development. (1963). The Idaho almanac: Territorial centennial edition 1863-1963. Boise: Idaho Department of Commerce and Development.

40.

Idaho Secretary of State. (n.d.). Voter registration by district and county and party affiliation totals by county and legislative district. Retrieved from https://www.sos.idaho.gov/elect/VoterReg/totals.html

41.

Irwin

Rothstein

Yearley

McCarthy

(1997). Regulatory science: Towards a sociological framework. Futures, 29, 17-31.

42.

Jacques

P. J.

Dunlap

R. E.

Freeman

(2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.

43.

Jasanoff

(1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Jones

J. M.

(2015). In U.S., new record 43% are political independents. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/180440/new-record-political-independents.aspx

45.

Kahan

D. M.

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

46.

Kahan

D. M.

Peters

Wittlin

Slovic

Ouellette

L. L.

Braman

Mandel

(2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732-735. doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

47.

Kearnes

Wynne

(2007). On nanotechnology and ambivalence: The politics of enthusiasm. Nanoethics, 1, 131-142.

48.

Kennedy

(2016). Most Americans trust the military and scientists to act in the public’s interest. Pew research fact tank news in the numbers. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/18/most-americans-trust-the-military-and-scientists-to-act-in-the-publics-interest/

49.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Amos

(1998). The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41-60.

50.

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.

51.

Lahsen

(2005). Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcations. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 137-169.

52.

Lewandowsky

Oberauer

(2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436 cdps.sagepub.com.

53.

Lujan

H. D. L.

(1964). Voting behavior in Idaho, 1950-1962: A study of party predisposition at the precinct level (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Idaho, Moscow.

54.

Macnaghten

Myers

(2004). Focus groups. In Seale

Gobo

Gubrium

J. F.

Silverman

(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 65-79). London, England: Sage.

55.

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.

56.

Manza

Crowley

(2017). Working class hero? Interrogating the social bases of the rise of Donald Trump. The Forum, 15(1), 3-28. doi:10.1515/for-2017-0002

57.

Mason

S. G.

(2016). Decision making at the state and local level: Does science matter? PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(1), 21-26.

58.

Mayer

(2016). Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. New York, NY: Doubleday.

59.

McCright

A. M.

Dentzman

Charters

Dietz

(2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8, 1-9. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029.

60.

McCright

A. M.

Dunlap

R. E.

(2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy review. Social Problems, 50, 348-373.

61.

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. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155-194.

62.

McKnight

D. H.

Chervany

(2001). While trust is cool and collected, distrust is fiery and frenzied: A model of distrust concepts. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings, 171, pp. 883-888.

63.

Mihelich

J.A.

Sarathchandra

Hormel

Craig

Storrs

(2015). The cultural negotiation of publics-science relations: Effects of Idaho residents’ orientation toward science on support for K-12 STEM education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 35, 166-177.

64.

Mooney

(2005). The Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.

65.

Nie

(2004). State wildlife policy and management: The scope and bias of political conflict. Public Administration Review, 64, 221-233.

66.

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.

67.

Oreskes

Conway

E. M.

(2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

68.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Party affiliation by state. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/

69.

Presidential election results: Donald Trump wins. (2016). New York Times Election 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

70.

Rogers

C. L.

(1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

71.

Rogers

(2017). Hope in the Wallowas: One nonprofit is helping revitalize timber country. 1859 Oregon Magazine. Retrieved from https://1859oregonmagazine.com/think-oregon/hope-in-the-wallowas/

72.

Rothstein

Irwin

Yearley

McCarthy

(1999). Regulatory science, Europeanization, and the control of agrochemicals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24, 241-226.

73.

Rouyer

(1978). The Idaho political handbook. Moscow: Bureau of Public Affairs Research, University of Idaho.

74.

Rowan

K. E.

(1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex Science. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 210-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

75.

Rushefsky

M. E.

(1986). Making cancer policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.

76.

Russell

B. Z.

(2014, April 4). 59% of Idaho voters still unaffiliated as primary election approaches. Spokesman Review. Retrieved from http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/boise/2014/apr/04/59-idaho-voters-still-unaffiliated-primary-election-approaches/

77.

Schwantes

C. A.

(1991). In mountain shadows: A history of Idaho. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

78.

Science News Staff. (2017). What’s in Trump’s 2018 budget request for science? Science. Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/what-s-trump-s-2018-budget-request-science

79.

Smithson

(1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

80.

Stapilus

(1988). Paradox politics: People and power in Idaho. Carlton, OR: Ridenbaugh Press.

81.

Stocking

S. H.

(1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

82.

Stocking

S. H.

Holstein

L. W.

(2009). Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 23-42.

83.

Sturgis

Allum

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

84.

Theel

(2010). Right-wing media attack Michelle Obama for fighting childhood obesity. MediaMatters.org. Retrieved from https://mediamatters.org/research/2010/09/17/right-wing-media-attack-michelle-obama-for-figh/170761

85.

University of Idaho Extension. (2014). Idaho indicators. Retrieved from indicatorsidaho.org/DrawRegion.aspx?RegionID=16000&IndicatorID=17

86.

Vincent

C. H.

Hanson

L. A.

Argueta

C. N.

(2017). Federal land ownership: Overview and data. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

87.

Wilson

M. A.

(1997). The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society & Natural Resources, 10, 453-468.

88.

Witt

S. L.

Laurent

(2015). Go away closer: The collision of culture and governance. In Judd

D. R.

Witt

S. L.

(Eds.), Cities, sagebrush, and solitude: Urbanization and cultural conflict in the Great Basin (pp. 67-88). Reno: University of Nevada Press.

89.

Wood

B. D.

Vedlitz

(2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552-568.

90.

Wynne

(1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.

91.

Wynne

(1995). The public understanding of science. In Jasanoff

Markel

Peterson

Pinch

(Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). London, England: Sage.

92.

Yearly

(1994). Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: An overview. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 245-258.

93.

Zehr

S. C.

(1999). Scientists’ representations of uncertainty. In Friedman

S. M.

Dunwoody

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

94.

Zia

Todd

A. M.

(2010). Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: How to improve communication across ideological divides. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 743-761.