This article introduces the concepts of contested knowledge and spillover to aid in understanding the relation between the controversy over evolution and related ideas and uncontested science knowledge. Contested knowledge exists wherever truth claims from multiple spheres of knowledge authority overlap, large or small. Spillover is a process of (1) a rejection of the authority of knowledge elites from an opposed knowledge sphere, and (2) devaluation of the set of heuristics for evidence tied to specific knowledges (contested and uncontested), a process that has wide-reaching implications. Using four waves of data from the General Social Survey (GSS; 2006–2012), I find evidence that conservative Protestant affiliation is associated with reduced knowledge of the physical and life sciences. This bivariate association is fully mediated, primarily through the rejection of mainstream scientific accounts of evolution. Findings also suggest that conservative Protestant affiliation increases the likelihood of that rejection. I argue that positions within this contested knowledge area spill over to other, uncontested forms of scientific knowledge. Results are validated using the 2014 wave of the GSS.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A.1986. “The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51(6):1173–82.
2.
BenfordRobert D.SnowDavid A.2000. “Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26:611–39.
3.
BergerPeter L.LuckmannThomas. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor.
4.
BeyerleinKraig. 2004. “Specifying the Impact of Conservative Protestantism on Educational Attainment.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion43(4):505–18.
5.
BhattacharjeeYudhijit. 2011. “New NSF Survey Tries to Separate Knowledge and Belief.” Science333(6041):394.
6.
BollenKenneth A.1980. “Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy.” American Sociological Review45(3):370–90.
7.
BollenKenneth A.1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley.
8.
BourdieuPierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9.
BurkePeter. 2000. A Social History of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
10.
ChavesMark. 1994. “Secularization as Declining Religious Authority.” Social Forces72(3):749–74.
11.
CollinsHarry M.1983. “The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Studies of Contemporary Science.” Annual Review of Sociology9(1):265–85.
12.
D’AndradeRoy. 1995. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
DarnellAlfredSherkatDarren E.1997. “The Impact of Protestant Fundamentalism on Educational Attainment.” American Sociological Review62(2):306–15.
14.
DawkinsRichard. 2006. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam Books.
15.
DiMaggioPaul. 1997. “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology23:263–87.
16.
DixonGraham N.ClarkeChristopher E.2013. “Heightening Uncertainty around Certain Science Media Coverage, False Balance, and the Autism-vaccine Controversy.” Science Communication35(3):358–82.
17.
EcklundElaine Howard. 2010. Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
EllisonChristopher G.MusickMarc A.1995. “Conservative Protestantism and Public Opinion toward Science.” Review of Religious Research36(3):245–62.
19.
EllisonChristopher G.MusickMarc A.HoldenGeorge W.2011. “Does Conservative Protestantism Moderate the Association between Corporal Punishment and Child Outcomes?”Journal of Marriage and Family73(5):946–61.
20.
EvansJohn H.2011. “Epistemological and Moral Conflict between Religion and Science.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50(4):707–27.
21.
EvansJohn H.2013. “The Growing Social and Moral Conflict between Conservative Protestantism and Science.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion52(2):368–85.
22.
EvansJohn H.EvansMichael S.2008. “Religion and Science: Beyond the Epistemological Conflict Narrative.” Annual Review of Sociology34(1):87–105.
23.
FoucaultMichel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd ed.New York: Vintage Books.
24.
GamsonWilliam A.CroteauDavidHoynesWilliamSassonTheodore. 1992. “Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality.” Annual Review of Sociology18:373–93.
25.
GamsonWilliam A.ModiglianiAndre. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology95(1):1–37.
26.
GauchatGordon. 2012. “Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in Science in the U.S., 1974 to 2010.” American Sociological Review77:167–187.
27.
GiddensAnthony. 1991. Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press.
28.
GierynThomas F.1983. “Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review48(6):781–95.
29.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
30.
GuhinJeffrey. 2016. “Why Worry about Evolution? Boundaries, Practices, and Moral Salience in Sunni and Evangelical High Schools.” Sociological Theory34(2):151–74.
31.
HancockGregory R.MuellerRalph O.2001. “Rethinking Construct Reliability within Latent Variable Systems.” Pp. 196–216 in Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future—A Festschrift in Honor of Karl Jöreskog, edited by CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD.Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
32.
HershbergerScott L.2006. “The Problem of Equivalent Structural Models.” Pp. 13–41 in Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, edited by MuellerR. O.HancockG. R.Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
33.
HunterJames Davison. 1992. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Control the Family, Art, Education, Law, and Politics in America. New York: Basic Books.
34.
JohnsonDavid R.ScheitleChristopher P.EcklundElaine Howard. 2015. “Individual Religiosity and Orientation towards Science: Reformulating Relationships.” Sociological Science2:106–24.
35.
KahanDan M.2012. “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study.” Judgment and Decision Making8:407–24.
36.
KahanDan M.PetersEllenWittlinMaggieSlovicPaulOuelletteLisa LarrimoreBramanDonaldMandelGregory. 2012. “The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change2(10):732–35.
37.
KlineRex B.2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed.New York: Guilford Press.
38.
KuhnThomas. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
LamontMichèle. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper-middle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40.
MannheimKarl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Harcourt.
41.
MannheimKarl. 1993. “Competition as a Cultural Phenomenon.” Pp. 191–229 in From Karl Mannheim, edited by WolffK. H.London: Transaction Publishers.
42.
McCrightAaron M.DunlapRiley E.2011. “The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public’s Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010.” The Sociological Quarterly52(2):155–94.
43.
MertonRobert K.1968. Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged ed. New York: Free Press.
44.
MillerJon D.2004. “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” Public Understanding of Science13(3):273–94.
45.
MillerJon D.PardoRafaelNiwaFujio. 1997. Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Bilbao, Spain: Fundación BBV.
46.
MooreKelly. 2008. Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
National Science Board. 2014. “Science and Engineering Indicators 2014.” NSB 10-01, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Retrieved November13, 2014 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/).
NisbetMatthew C.ScheufeleDietram A.ShanahanJamesMoyPatriciaBrossardDominiqueLewensteinBruce V.2002. “Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? A Media Effects Model for Public Perceptions of Science and Technology.” Communication Research29(5):584–608.
50.
O’BrienTimothy L.NoyShiri. 2015. “Traditional, Modern, and Post-secular Perspectives on Science and Religion in the United States.” American Sociological Review80(1):92–115.
51.
OreskesNaomiConwayErik M.2011. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
52.
PerrinAndrew J.RoosJ. MicahGauchatGordon W.2014. “From Coalition to Constraint: Modes of Thought in Contemporary American Conservatism.” Sociological Forum29(2):285–300.
53.
RoosJ. Micah. 2014. “Measuring Science or Religion? A Measurement Analysis of the National Science Foundation Sponsored Science Literacy Scale 2006–2010.” Public Understanding of Science23(7):797–813.
54.
RoosJ. Micah. 2016. “Alternately Contested: A Measurement Analysis of Alternately Worded Items in the NSF Science Literacy Scale.” Forthcoming in Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World.
55.
SherkatDarren E.2011. “Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly92(5):1134–50.
56.
SmithTom W.MarsdenPeter V.HoutMichael2016. General Social Surveys, 1972–2014:Cumulative Codebook. Principal Investigator, Tom W. Smith; Co-Principal Investigators, Peter V. Marsden and Michael Hout. – Chicago: NORC, 2016. 3,505 pp., 28cm. – (National Data Program for the Social Sciences Series, no. 23).
57.
SnowDavid A.AndersonLeon. 1987. “Identity Work among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities.” American Journal of Sociology92(6):1336–71.
58.
SteenslandBrianParkJerry Z.RegnerusMark D.RobinsonLynn D.WilcoxW. BradfordWoodberryRobert D.2000. “The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.” Social Forces79(1):291–318.
59.
TarrowSidneyTillyCharlesMcAdamDoug. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. London; Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WoodberryRobert D.ParkJerry Z.KellstedtLyman A.RegnerusMark D.SteenslandBrian. 2012. “The Measure of American Religious Traditions: Theoretical and Measurement Considerations.” Social Forces91(1):65–73.
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.
