ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blueprint of a smokescreen: Introducing the validated climate disinformation corpus for behavioural research on combating climate disinformation.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Protocol: a systematic review+ (SR+) to combine associative and mechanistic evidence on the efficacy of face masks in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Contested science communication: Representations of scientists and their science in newspaper articles and the associated comment sections.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- The importance of scientists' intellectual humility for communicating effectively across ideological and identity-based divides.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- An agenda for science communication research and practice.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Who is "anti-science"?Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Psychological inoculation strategies to fight climate disinformation across 12 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Article
- Selective and deceptive citation in the construction of dueling consensuses.Science advances · 2023Article
- Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Psychosocial Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and the Mediating Role of Various Attitudes towards Science.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Societal changes bring about the imperative to readjust the medical gaze.Croatian medical journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
From vaccination refusal to climate change denial, antiscience views are threatening humanity. When different individuals are provided with the same piece of scientific evidence, why do some accept whereas others dismiss it? Building on various emerging data and models that have explored the psychology of being antiscience, we specify four core bases of key principles driving antiscience attitudes. These principles are grounded in decades of research on attitudes, persuasion, social influence, social identity, and information processing. They apply across diverse domains of antiscience phenomena. Specifically, antiscience attitudes are more likely to emerge when a scientific message comes from sources perceived as lacking credibility; when the recipients embrace the social membership or identity of groups with antiscience attitudes; when the scientific message itself contradicts what recipients consider true, favorable, valuable, or moral; or when there is a mismatch between the delivery of the scientific message and the epistemic style of the recipient. Politics triggers or amplifies many principles across all four bases, making it a particularly potent force in antiscience attitudes. Guided by the key principles, we describe evidence-based counteractive strategies for increasing public acceptance of science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.