In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism.
AbramsD.LalotF.HoggM. (2021). Intergroup and intragroup dimensions of COVID-19: A social identity perspective on social fragmentation and unity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220983440
2.
BessiA.ColettoM.DavidescuG. A.ScalaA.CaldarelliG.QuattrociocchiW. (2015). Science vs conspiracy: Collective narratives in the age of misinformation. PLoS One, 10, Article e0118093. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118093
3.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
CroucherS. M.NguyenT.RahmaniD. (2020). Prejudice toward Asian Americans in the COVID-19 pandemic: The effects of social media use in the United States. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00039
6.
DittoP. H.LiuB. S.ClarkC. J.WojcikS. P.ChenE. E.GradyR. H.CelnikerJ. B.ZingerJ. F. (2019). At least bias is bipartisan: A meta-analytic comparison of partisan bias in liberals and conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
DryhurstS.SchneiderC. R.KerrJ.FreemanA. L. J.RecchiaG.van der BlesA. M.SpiegelhalterD.van der LindenS. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23, 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193
GreenJ.EdgertonJ.NaftelD.ShoubK.CranmerS. J. (2020). Elusive consensus: Polarization in elite communication on the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Advances, 6, Article eabc2717. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc2717
13.
GustafsonA.RiceR. E. (2020). A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication. Public Understanding of Science, 29, 614–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520942122
14.
HornseyM. J.FieldingK. S. (2017). Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist, 72, 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040437
15.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.FieldingK. S. (2018a). Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change, 8, 614–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0157-2
16.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.FieldingK. S. (2018b). The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology, 37, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000586
17.
JohnsonN. F.VelásquezN.RestrepoN. J.LeahyR.GabrielN.El OudS.ZhengM.ManriqueP.WutchyS.LupuY. (2020). The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature, 582, 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2281-1
18.
JolleyD.DouglasK. M. (2017). Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12453
19.
JostJ. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38, 167–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12407
20.
JostJ. T.KruglanskiA. W.GlaserJ.SullowayF. J.GreenbergJ.HigginsE. T.HunyadyO.SidanjusJ. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
21.
KerrJ. R.PanagopoulosC.van der LindenS. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States. Manuscript under review.
22.
KerrJ. R.WilsonM. S. (2018). Changes in perceived scientific consensus shift beliefs about climate change and GM food safety. PLoS One, 13, Article e0200295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200295
23.
KrangeO.KaltenbornB. P.HultmanM. (2019). Cool dudes in Norway: Climate change denial among conservative Norwegian men. Environmental Sociology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2018.1488516
24.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.OberauerK. (2013). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
25.
LewandowskyS.GignacG. E.VaughanS. (2013). The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science. Nature Climate Change, 3, 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720
26.
LewandowskyS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
27.
McCrightA. M.DentzmanK.ChartersM.DietzT. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8, Article 044029. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044029
28.
McGuireW. J. (1964). Inducing resistance against persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 191–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0
29.
McPhetresJ.RutjensB. T.WeinsteinN.BrissonJ. A. (2019). Modifying attitudes about modified foods: Increased knowledge leads to more positive attitudes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.012
30.
MertonR. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
31.
MooneyC. (2012). The Republican brain: The science of why they deny science—and reality. John Wiley & Sons.
32.
MottaM.SteculaD.FarhartC. (2020). How right-leaning media coverage of COVID-19 facilitated the spread of misinformation in the early stages of the pandemic in the US. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 53, 335–342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000396
33.
Nature Editorial (2017) Beware the anti-science label. Nature 545, 133–134.
34.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (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 Science, 658, 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
35.
OliverJ. E.WoodT. J. (2014). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 952–966. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363536
36.
PackerD.UngsonN.MarshJ. (2021). Conformity and reactions to deviance in the time of COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24, 312–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220981419
RoozenbeekJ.SchneiderC.DryhurstS.KerrJ.FreemanA.RecchiaG.van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7, Article 201199. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201199
39.
RutjensB. T.BrandtM. J. (2018). Belief systems and the perception of reality: An introduction. In RutjensB. T.BrandtM. J. (Eds.), Belief systems and the perception of reality. Routledge.
40.
RutjensB. T.HeineS. J.SuttonR. M.van HarreveldF. (2018). Attitudes towards science. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 57, pp. 125–165). Academic Press.
41.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptanceand rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
42.
RutjensB. T.van der LeeR. (2020). Spiritual skepticism? Heterogeneous science skepticism in the Netherlands. Public Understanding of Science, 29, 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520908534
43.
RutjensB. T.van der LeeR.SenguptaN.van KoningsbruggenG. M.MartensJ. P.RabeloA.SuttonR. M. (2021). Science skepticism in 24 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, in press.
44.
SchmidP.BetschC. (2019). Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions. Nature Human Behaviour, 3, 931–939. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4
SteffenW.RockströmJ.RichardsonK.LentonT. M.FolkeC.…LivermanD.SummerhayesC. P.BarnoskyA. D.CornellS. E.CrucifixM.DongesJ. F.FetzerI.LadeS. J.SchefferM.WinkelmannR.SchellnhuberH. J. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. In ClarkWC. (Ed.) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (vol. 115, pp. 8252-8259). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
StevensS. T.JussimL.AnglinS. M.HoneycuttN. (2018). Direct and indirect influences of political ideology on perceptions of scientific findings. In RutjensB. T.BrandtM. J. (Eds.), Belief systems and the perception of reality (pp. 117–133). Routledge.
UscinskiJ. E.EndersA. M.KlofstadC.SeeligM.FunchionJ.EverettC.WuchtyS.PremaratneK.MurthiM. N. (2020). Why do people believe COVID-19 conspiracy theories?The Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-015
51.
Van BavelJ. J.BaickerK.BoggioP. S.CapraroV.CichockaA.CikaraM.CrockettM. J.CrumA. J.DouglasK. M.DruckmanJ. N.DruryJ.DubeO.EllemersN.FinkelE. J.FowlerJ. H.GelfandM.HanS.HaslamS. A.JettenJ.… WillerR. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
52.
Van der BlesA. M.van der LindenS.FreemanA. L.SpiegelhalterD. J. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 117, 7672–7683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1913678117
53.
Van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.FeinbergG.MaibachE. (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: Experimental evidence. PLoS One, 10, Article e0118489. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489
54.
Van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2018). Scientific agreement can neutralize politicization of facts. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0259-2.
55.
Van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2019). The gateway belief model: A large-scale replication. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 62, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.01.009
56.
Van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1, Article 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
57.
Van der LindenS.PanagopoulosC.AzevedoF.JostJ. T. (2020). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681
58.
Van der LindenS.RoozenbeekJ.ComptonJ. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 2928. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790
59.
WashburnA. N.SkitkaL. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
