RAPID: Influence on Beliefs in Non-Scientific Theories

Iowa State University, Ames IA

Investigators

Abstract

Contrary to the popular negative depictions, public endorsement of non-scientific theories are not solely the domain of extremists and paranoids. A large proportion of the public will admit to believing in at least one matter that most in the scientific community disparage. To an outside observer, a particular theory may seem irrational, but that does not preclude its potential to be socially or politically consequential. As a result, it is vital to understand where these attitudes come from in order to develop strategies to minimize their spread. A problem researchers face, however, is that many non-scientific views have already become politicized before surveys assessing respondents' beliefs in them are fielded. Moreover, it is impossible for researchers to anticipate the rare situations in which elites unambiguously endorse a "theory" that most scientists would not endorse. As such, it is difficult to disentangle the causal effects of elite cues, partisanship, and the like. The current research will re-interview a set of survey respondents (previously interviewed in 2017) and a set of new respondents to gauge how their attitudes about a theory not supported by scientists has changed in the last two years (before and after the non-scientific perspective became promoted by elites). This research will enable the PIs to test over time changes in support for a non-scientific views. Given the importance and prominence, along with the disruption, possibly caused by public acceptance of non-scientific views, the knowledge gained in this research will enable efforts to mitigate the effects of non-scientific views. In this proposal, we empirically test how an individual's support of a non-scientific view changes over time. We will re-interview a set of previously interviewed survey respondents to leverage changes since 2017. Additionally, we will survey a set of new respondents and randomize the information about the view they receive. The combination of these designs will enable us to test several theoretically motivated hypotheses about how the intersection of a person's predispositions and the information environment create support for non-scientific views and how these views may become politicized. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.