IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v7y2018i4p64-d140896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Relevant Anti-Science Perceptions to Improve Science-Based Communication: The Negative Perceptions of Science Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Melanie Morgan

    (Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA)

  • William B. Collins

    (Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA)

  • Glenn G. Sparks

    (Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA)

  • Jessica R. Welch

    (Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA)

Abstract

Science communicators and scholars have struggled to understand what appears to be increasingly frequent endorsement of a wide range of anti-science beliefs and a corresponding reduction of trust in science. A common explanation for this issue is a lack of science literacy/knowledge among the general public (Funk et al. 2015). However, other possible explanations have been advanced, including conflict with alternative belief systems and other contextual factors, and even cultural factors (Gauchat 2008; Kahan 2015) that are not necessarily due to knowledge deficits. One of the challenges is that there are limited tools available to measure a range of possible underlying negative perceptions of science that could provide a more nuanced framework within which to improve communication around important scientific topics. This project describes two studies detailing the development and validation of the Negative Perceptions of Science Scale (NPSS), a multi-dimensional instrument that taps into several distinct sets of negative science perceptions: Science as Corrupt , Science as Complex , Science as Heretical , and Science as Limited . Evidence for the reliability and validity of the NPSS is described. The sub-dimensions of the NPSS are associated with a range of specific anti-science beliefs across a broad set of topic areas above and beyond that explained by demographics (including education, sex, age, and income), political, and religious ideology. Implications for these findings for improving science communication and science-related message tailoring are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Melanie Morgan & William B. Collins & Glenn G. Sparks & Jessica R. Welch, 2018. "Identifying Relevant Anti-Science Perceptions to Improve Science-Based Communication: The Negative Perceptions of Science Scale," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:64-:d:140896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/64/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/7/4/64/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    2. Ted G. Jelen & Linda A. Lockett, 2014. "Religion, Partisanship, and Attitudes Toward Science Policy," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440135, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    2. Paul A. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2020. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Working Papers 20-03, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    3. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    4. Aaron Smith-Walter & Michael D. Jones & Elizabeth A. Shanahan & Holly Peterson, 2020. "The stories groups tell: campaign finance reform and the narrative networks of cultural cognition," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 645-684, April.
    5. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Shapiro, Matthew A., 2020. "Next-generation battery research and development: Non-politicized science at the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Sedona Chinn & P. Sol Hart, 2021. "Effects of consensus messages and political ideology on climate change attitudes: inconsistent findings and the effect of a pretest," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-21, August.
    8. Birkelund, Johan & Cherry, Todd L. & McEvoy, David M., 2022. "A culture of cheating: The role of worldviews in preferences for honesty," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    10. Linda M. Fogg & Lawrence C. Hamilton & Erin S. Bell, 2020. "Views of the Highway: Infrastructure Reality, Perceptions, and Politics," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    11. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    12. Michael D. Jones, 2014. "Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our Perception of Climate Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(1), pages 1-39, March.
    13. Bazzi, Samuel & Fiszbein, Martin & Gebresilasse, Mesay, 2021. "“Rugged individualism” and collective (in)action during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Daniela Salite, 2019. "Explaining the uncertainty: understanding small-scale farmers’ cultural beliefs and reasoning of drought causes in Gaza Province, Southern Mozambique," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 427-441, September.
    15. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    16. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    17. Antony Millner & Hélène Ollivier, 2016. "Beliefs, Politics, and Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 226-244.
    18. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    19. Emma Brush, 2020. "Inconvenient truths: pluralism, pragmatism, and the need for civil disagreement," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(2), pages 160-168, June.
    20. D'Amato, Alessio & Giaccherini, Matilde & Zoli, Mariangela, 2019. "The Role of Information Sources and Providers in Shaping Green Behaviors. Evidence from Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:64-:d:140896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.