IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v6y2022i4d10.1038_s41562-021-01273-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity

Author

Listed:
  • Suzanne Hoogeveen

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Julia M. Haaf

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Joseph A. Bulbulia

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • Robert M. Ross

    (Macquarie University)

  • Ryan McKay

    (Royal Holloway, University of London)

  • Sacha Altay

    (Institut Jean Nicod)

  • Theiss Bendixen

    (Aarhus University)

  • Renatas Berniūnas

    (Vilnius University)

  • Arik Cheshin

    (University of Haifa)

  • Claudio Gentili

    (University of Padova)

  • Raluca Georgescu

    (Babes-Bolyai University)

  • Will M. Gervais

    (Brunel University London)

  • Kristin Hagel

    (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology)

  • Christopher Kavanagh

    (University of Oxford
    Rikkyo University)

  • Neil Levy

    (Macquarie University
    Macquarie University)

  • Alejandra Neely

    (Adolfo Ibáñez University)

  • Lin Qiu

    (Nanyang Technological University)

  • André Rabelo

    (Universidade de Brasília)

  • Jonathan E. Ramsay

    (James Cook University)

  • Bastiaan T. Rutjens

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Hugh Turpin

    (University of Oxford)

  • Filip Uzarevic

    (Catholic University of Louvain)

  • Robin Wuyts

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Dimitris Xygalatas

    (University of Connecticut)

  • Michiel Elk

    (Leiden University)

Abstract

People tend to evaluate information from reliable sources more favourably, but it is unclear exactly how perceivers’ worldviews interact with this source credibility effect. In a large and diverse cross-cultural sample (N = 10,195 from 24 countries), we presented participants with obscure, meaningless statements attributed to either a spiritual guru or a scientist. We found a robust global source credibility effect for scientific authorities, which we dub ‘the Einstein effect’: across all 24 countries and all levels of religiosity, scientists held greater authority than spiritual gurus. In addition, individual religiosity predicted a weaker relative preference for the statement from the scientist compared with the spiritual guru, and was more strongly associated with credibility judgements for the guru than the scientist. Independent data on explicit trust ratings across 143 countries mirrored our experimental findings. These findings suggest that irrespective of one’s religious worldview, across cultures science is a powerful and universal heuristic that signals the reliability of information.

Suggested Citation

  • Suzanne Hoogeveen & Julia M. Haaf & Joseph A. Bulbulia & Robert M. Ross & Ryan McKay & Sacha Altay & Theiss Bendixen & Renatas Berniūnas & Arik Cheshin & Claudio Gentili & Raluca Georgescu & Will M. G, 2022. "The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(4), pages 523-535, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:6:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-021-01273-8
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01273-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01273-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-021-01273-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:401-412 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Travis William Reynolds & Ann Bostrom & Daniel Read & M. Granger Morgan, 2010. "Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(10), pages 1520-1538, October.
    3. Dominic D. P. Johnson & James H. Fowler, 2011. "The evolution of overconfidence," Nature, Nature, vol. 477(7364), pages 317-320, September.
    4. Kimmo Eriksson, 2012. "The nonsense math effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(6), pages 746-749, November.
    5. Will M. Gervais & Michiel van Elk & Dimitris Xygalatas & Ryan T. McKay & Mark Aveyard & Emma E. Buchtel & Ilan Dar-Nimrod & Eva Kundtová Klocová & Jonathan E. Ramsay & Tapani Riekki & Annika M. Sved, 2018. "Analytic atheism: A cross-culturally weak and fickle phenomenon?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 268-274, May.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:6:p:746-749 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    8. Gordon Pennycook & Robert M Ross & Derek J Koehler & Jonathan A Fugelsang, 2016. "Atheists and Agnostics Are More Reflective than Religious Believers: Four Empirical Studies and a Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Mummolo, Jonathan & Peterson, Erik, 2019. "Demand Effects in Survey Experiments: An Empirical Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(2), pages 517-529, May.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:6:p:549-563 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Gordon Pennycook & James Allan Cheyne & Nathaniel Barr & Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang, 2015. "On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(6), pages 549-563, November.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:268-274 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. J. van Doorn & A. Ly & M. Marsman & E.-J. Wagenmakers, 2020. "Bayesian rank-based hypothesis testing for the rank sum test, the signed rank test, and Spearman's ρ," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(16), pages 2984-3006, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tobia Spampatti & Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Evelina Trutnevyte & Tobias Brosch, 2024. "Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 380-398, February.
    2. Hannigan, Timothy R. & McCarthy, Ian P. & Spicer, André, 2024. "Beware of botshit: How to manage the epistemic risks of generative chatbots," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 67(5), pages 471-486.

    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. 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.
    2. Andrea F.M. Martinangeli & Lisa Windsteiger, 2019. "Immigration vs. Poverty: Causal Impact on Demand for Redistribution in a Survey Experiment," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2019-13, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.
    3. Sweldens, Steven & Puntoni, Stefano & Paolacci, Gabriele & Vissers, Maarten, 2014. "The bias in the bias: Comparative optimism as a function of event social undesirability," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 229-244.
    4. Quitterie Roquebert & Jonathan Sicsic & Thomas Rapp, 2021. "Health measures and long-term care use in the European frail population," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(3), pages 405-423, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Cattaneo, Maria & Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger & Wolter, Stefan C., 2020. "Information provision and preferences for education spending: Evidence from representative survey experiments in three countries," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    7. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    8. Cavapozzi, Danilo & Francesconi, Marco & Nicoletti, Cheti, 2024. "Dividing Housework between Partners: Individual Preferences and Social Norms," IZA Discussion Papers 17370, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Robin Maximilian Stetzka & Stefan Winter, 2023. "How rational is gambling?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1432-1488, September.
    12. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    13. 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.
    14. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Spitzer, Sonja & Shaikh, Mujaheed, 2022. "Health misperception and healthcare utilisation among older Europeans," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 22(C).
    16. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. 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).
    18. 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.
    19. Pablo Corona-Fraga & Aldo Hernandez-Suarez & Gabriel Sanchez-Perez & Linda Karina Toscano-Medina & Hector Perez-Meana & Jose Portillo-Portillo & Jesus Olivares-Mercado & Luis Javier García Villalba, 2025. "Question–Answer Methodology for Vulnerable Source Code Review via Prototype-Based Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-39, January.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:nat:nathum:v:6:y:2022:i:4:d:10.1038_s41562-021-01273-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.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.