When science contradicts people’s experiences, they often deny the science. Psychological science may be particularly prone to denialism because of its relatively high relevance to people’s lives. In two sets of studies (N = 637 from university students and Mechanical Turk workers), we tested whether perceived and actual incongruence between one’s personality and scientific findings predict psychological discomfort and science denialism. Participants rated the incongruence (subjective incongruence) between their own personality responses and science, as well as their comfort and denial of the science. Those who experienced more subjective incongruence experienced greater discomfort and reported more science denialism. Those whose personality characteristics were objectively incongruent with the science also experienced greater subjective incongruence (all studies), discomfort (Studies 1A, 1B, and 1C), and science denialism (Studies 1A, 1C, and 2B) compared with those with congruent characteristics. Implications regarding denialism of psychological science, and science more broadly, are discussed.
AdamH.ObodaruO.GalinskiA. D. (2015). Who you are is where you are: Antecedents and consequences of locating the self in the brain or the heart. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.03.004
2.
AikenL.WestS. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE.
3.
AshtonM. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303.
4.
BlantonH.PelhamB. W.DeHartT.CarvalloM. (2001). Overconfidence as dissonance reduction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1458
5.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25(1), 49–59.
6.
DawkinsR. (2006). The god delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
DonnellanM. B.OswaldF. L.BairdB. M.LucasR. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the big five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
9.
ElliotA. J.DevineP. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382
10.
EpleyN.DunningD. (2000). Feeling “holier than thou”: Are self-serving assessments produced by errors in self- or social prediction?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 861–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.861
11.
FergusonC. J. (2015). “Everybody knows psychology is not a real science”: Public perceptions of psychology and how we can improve our relationship with policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. American Psychologist, 70(6), 527–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039405
12.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
13.
FettermanA. K.JuhlJ.MeierB. P.AbeytaA.RoutledgeC.RobinsonM. D. (2020). The path to God is through the heart: Metaphoric self-location as a predictor of religiosity. Self and Identity, 19(6), 650–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1651389
14.
FettermanA. K.RobinsonM. D. (2013). Do you use your head or follow your heart? Self-location predicts personality, emotion, decision making, and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033374
15.
GebauerJ. E.WagnerJ.SedikidesC.NeberichW. (2013). Agency-communion and self-esteem relations are moderated by culture, religiosity, age, and sex: Evidence for the “self-centrality breeds self-enhancement” principle. Journal of Personality, 81(3), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00807.x
16.
GoldbergM. H.CarmichaelC. L.HardinC. D. (2020). Counter-argument self-efficacy predicts choice of belief-defense strategies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2603
17.
HodesR.CookE. W.LangP. J. (1985). Individual differences in autonomic response: Conditioned association or conditioned fear?Psychophysiology, 22, 545–560.
18.
HornseyM. J.HarrisE. A.BainP. G.FieldingK. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622–627. https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2943
19.
HuddyL.MasonL.AarøeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604
20.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034747
23.
KaplanJ. T.GimbelS. I.HarrisS. (2016). Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports, 6, Article 39589. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39589
LangP. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications. In SidowskiJ. B.JohnsonJ. H.WilliamsT. A. (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 119–137). Ablex.
26.
LewandowskiS.OberauerK. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
27.
LilienfeldS. O. (2012). Public skepticism of psychology: Why many people perceive the study of human behavior as unscientific. American Psychologist, 67(2), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023963
McPhetresJ. (2019). A perspective on the relevance and public perception of psychological science. Collabra: Psychology, 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.223
30.
McPhetresJ.PennycookG. (2020). Lay people are unimpressed by the effect sizes typically reported in psychological science. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qu9hn
31.
MooreD. A.SmallD. A. (2007). Error and bias in comparative judgment: On being both better and worse than we think we are. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 972–989. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.972
32.
RutjensB. T.HeineS. J.SuttonR. M.van HarreveldF. (2018). Attitudes toward science. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 57, 125–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.08.001
33.
SchwarzN. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
34.
SchwarzN.SannaL. J.SkurnikI.YoonC. (2007). Metacognitive experiences and the intricacies of setting people straight: Implications for debiasing and public information campaigns. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 127–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39003-X
35.
SedikidesC.GebauerJ. E. (2014). Religion and the self. In SaroglouV. (Ed.), Religion, personality, and social behavior (pp. 46–70). Psychology Press.
36.
SteeleC. M.LiuT. J. (1983). Dissonance processes as self-affirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.5
37.
StockerT. F.QinD.PlattnerG.-K.TignorM. M. B.AllenS. K.BoschungJ.NauelsA.XiaY.BexV.MidgleyP. M. (2013). Climate change 2013—The physical science basis: Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press.
38.
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(8), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
39.
WingenT.BerkesselJ. B.EnglichB. (2020). No replication, no trust? How low replicability influences trust in psychology. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619877412
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
