Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-12
“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
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.
AikenK. (2014). Idiosyncrasy and enigma: Idaho politics. In SowardsA. M. (Ed.), Idaho’s place: A new history of the gem state (pp. 76-104). Seattle: University of Washington Press.
2.
ArringtonL. J. (1994). History of Idaho (Vol. 2). Moscow, Idaho: University of Idaho Press.
3.
BakH. (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.
4.
BakerJ. O. (2012a). Perceptions of science and American secularism. Sociological Perspectives, 55, 167-188.
5.
BakerJ. O. (2012b). Public perceptions of incompatibility between “science and religion.”Public Understanding of Science, 21, 340-353.
BigleyG. A.PearceJ. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organization science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405-421.
8.
BilligM. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BlankJ. M.ShawD. (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.
BlankR. H. (1978). Regional diversity of political values: Idaho political culture. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
11.
BlankR. H. (1988). Individualism in Idaho: The territorial foundations. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
12.
BoagP. (1997). Mountain, plain, desert, river: The snake river region as a western crossroads. In WrobelD. M.SteinerM. C. (Eds.), Many wests: Place, culture, and regional identity (pp. 177-204). Lawrence, University of Kansas Press.
13.
BrewerP. R.LeyB. L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35, 115-137.
14.
BrossardD.NisbetM. (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.
BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.KimE.LewensteinB. V. (2009). Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 546-558.
16.
BsumekP. K.SchneiderJ.SchwarzeS.PeeplesJ. (2014). Corporate ventriloquism: Corporate advocacy, the coal industry, and the appropriation of voice. In PeeplesJ.DepoeS. (Eds.), Voice and environmental communication (pp. 21-43). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
CollinsH. M. (1987). Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on television. Social Studies of Science, 17, 689-713.
18.
CortassaC. (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.
CummingsL. L.BromileyP. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Cunningham-BurleyS.KerrA.PavisS. (1999). Theorising subjects and subject matter in focus group research. In BarbourR. S.KitzingerJ. (Eds.), Developing focus group research (pp. 186-199). London, England: Sage Publications.
21.
DaviesS. R.KearnesM. B.MacnaghtenP. M. (2009). “All things weird and scary”: Nanotechnology, theology and cultural resources. Culture and Religion, 10, 201-220.
22.
EinsiedelE.ThorneB. (1999). Public responses to uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 43-5). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
EngdahlE.LidskogR. (2014). Risk, communication and trust: Toward an emotional understanding of trust. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 703-717.
24.
EvansG.DurantJ. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 57-74.
25.
EvansM. S. (2012). Supporting science: Reasons, restrictions, and the role of religion. Science Communication, 34, 334-362.
26.
FisherP. I. (2016). State political culture and support for Donald Trump. Political Science & Politics, 49, 743-747.
27.
ForbesG. (1955). Dynamics of Idaho politics 1920-1932 (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Idaho, Moscow.
28.
GauchatG. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 751-770.
29.
GauchatG. (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.
HamiltonL. C. (2008). Who cares about polar regions?Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, 40, 671-678.
31.
HamiltonL. C.HartterJ.SaitoK. (2015). Trust in scientists’ on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open, 5(3), 1-13. doi:10.1177/2158244015602752.
32.
HoS. S.ScheufeleD. A.CorleyE. 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.
HormelL. (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
HornigS. (1993). Reading risk: Public response to print media accounts of technological risk. Public Understanding of Science, 2, 95-109.
36.
Hornig PriestS. (2001). A grain of truth: The media, the public, and biotechnology. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
37.
HoustonM. J.BruskotterJ. T.FanD. (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.
IrwinA.RothsteinH.YearleyS.McCarthyE. (1997). Regulatory science: Towards a sociological framework. Futures, 29, 17-31.
42.
JacquesP. J.DunlapR. E.FreemanM. (2008). The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism. Environmental Politics, 17, 349-385.
43.
JasanoffS. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
KerrA.Cunningham-BurleyS.AmosA. (1998). The new genetics and health: Mobilizing lay expertise. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 41-60.
50.
KraftP. WLodgeM.TaberC. 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.
LahsenM. (2005). Technocracy, democracy, and U.S. climate politics: The need for demarcations. Science, Technology & Human Values, 30, 137-169.
52.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217-222. doi:10.1177/0963721416654436cdps.sagepub.com.
53.
LujanH. 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.
MacnaghtenP.MyersG. (2004). Focus groups. In SealeC.GoboG.GubriumJ. F.SilvermanD. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 65-79). London, England: Sage.
55.
MalkaA.KrosnickJ. A.LangerG. (2009). The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis, 29, 633-647.
56.
ManzaJ.CrowleyN. (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.
MasonS. G. (2016). Decision making at the state and local level: Does science matter?PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(1), 21-26.
58.
MayerJ. (2016). Dark money: The hidden history of the billionaires behind the rise of the radical right. New York, NY: Doubleday.
59.
McCrightA. M.DentzmanK.ChartersM.DietzT. (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.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy review. Social Problems, 50, 348-373.
61.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. 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.
McKnightD. H.ChervanyN. (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.
MihelichJ.A.SarathchandraD.HormelLCraigTStorrsD. (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.
MooneyC. (2005). The Republican war on science. New York, NY: Basic Books.
65.
NieM. (2004). State wildlife policy and management: The scope and bias of political conflict. Public Administration Review, 64, 221-233.
66.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. 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.
OreskesN.ConwayE. 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.
RogersC. L. (1999). The importance of understanding audiences. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 179-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
RothsteinH.IrwinA.YearleyS.McCarthyE. (1999). Regulatory science, Europeanization, and the control of agrochemicals. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24, 241-226.
73.
RouyerA. (1978). The Idaho political handbook. Moscow: Bureau of Public Affairs Research, University of Idaho.
74.
RowanK. E. (1999). Effective explanation of uncertain and complex Science. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 210-224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
75.
RushefskyM. E. (1986). Making cancer policy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
SmithsonM. (1989). Ignorance and uncertainty: Emerging paradigms. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
80.
StapilusR. (1988). Paradox politics: People and power in Idaho. Carlton, OR: Ridenbaugh Press.
81.
StockingS. H. (1999). How journalists deal with scientific uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 23-41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
82.
StockingS. H.HolsteinL. W. (2009). Manufacturing doubt: Journalists’ roles and the construction of ignorance in a scientific controversy. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 23-42.
83.
SturgisP.AllumN. (2004). Science and society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55-74.
VincentC. H.HansonL. A.ArguetaC. N. (2017). Federal land ownership: Overview and data. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
87.
WilsonM. 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.
WittS. L.LaurentB. (2015). Go away closer: The collision of culture and governance. In JuddD. R.WittS. L. (Eds.), Cities, sagebrush, and solitude: Urbanization and cultural conflict in the Great Basin (pp. 67-88). Reno: University of Nevada Press.
89.
WoodB. D.VedlitzA. (2007). Issue definition, information processing, and the politics of global warming. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 552-568.
90.
WynneB. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1, 281-304.
91.
WynneB. (1995). The public understanding of science. In JasanoffS.MarkelG.PetersonJ.PinchT. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 361-388). London, England: Sage.
92.
YearlyS. (1994). Understanding science from the perspective of the sociology of scientific knowledge: An overview. Public Understanding of Science, 3, 245-258.
93.
ZehrS. C. (1999). Scientists’ representations of uncertainty. In FriedmanS. M.DunwoodyS.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 3-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
94.
ZiaA.ToddA. 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.
