Science from a Distance

Ever wondered what it is that scientists actually do day in and day out? What impact science really has in the real world, right here and right now? Surely for some people, science can seem hopelessly abstract, unclear, and difficult to relate to one's own everyday life. Our new research shows that holding such perceptions of science as distant is not uncommon, and can shape acceptance of scientific facts.

Even though 9 out of 10 people globally say they generally trust science, getting people to agree on the science is difficult when the science in question has implications that clash with someone's worldview or identity. Four in 10 people even explicitly state that personal beliefs take precedence over scientific facts by agreeing with the statement "I only believe science that aligns with my personal beliefs." This is evident in public divisions around the most important issues facing our societies, like fighting climate change and (future) pandemics.

Personal beliefs that hinder science acceptance differ a lot depending on the domain. Religious people find evolution difficult to accept because it implies that humans were not created by a deity. Political conservatives, especially in the United States, do not trust climate science because it clashes with messages coming from their political representatives. Spiritual people are more distrusting of vaccines. Overall, science rejection has so far been linked to diverse predictors, without much overlap between domains. This is what we focused on in our studies.

Is There a Common Thread in Science Rejection Across Domains?

In our new research, we set out to find it. We predicted that people for whom science feels more psychologically distant—meaning an unclear process with no direct relevance to one's life—will report attitudes and behaviors that are less in line with scientific evidence. Vice versa, when people perceive science as closer, they would accept scientific findings to a greater extent. 

We first developed a questionnaire to measure perceptions of distance to science, which we called the Psychological Distance to Science Scale. We asked people 1) to what extent they regard scientists as similar to themselves (social distance); 2) if they perceive science as present in their local community (spatial distance), and 3) in the present time (temporal distance). Finally, we asked 4) if they perceive science to be applicable and impactful in their everyday life (hypothetical distance).

Then, in several studies, we found that people who perceive science as distant from themselves and the real world reported less acceptance of climate change, vaccination, genetic modification, and evolution. This remained true even after we took into account other factors which are implicated in science rejection, such as political, religious, and conspiracy beliefs, as well as the person's actual science knowledge and their general negative perceptions of science as corrupt or flawed. Thus, feeling personally distant from science stood out as a predictor of science rejection across domains.

It is worth noting that, when looking into different aspects of distance perceptions, perceiving science as not having many practical implications and effects on the real world (that is, hypothetical distance to science) was consistently related to higher science rejection across all domains, suggesting that acknowledging and emphasizing the presence of science in many aspects of life could be key for science acceptance across various topics.

Finally, we wanted to know whether Psychological Distance to Science matters for a person's actual behavior related to science, not just their opinions. We chose getting vaccinated against COVID-19 as a consequential behavior to examine. In November 2021, we asked people who had participated in our studies in early 2021 whether they were vaccinated. We again took into account worldviews and their actual science knowledge, and found that higher psychological distance to science, reported several months before it was possible to receive a vaccine, was related to a lower likelihood of being fully vaccinated.

We think that practical good can come from this research. That is because we found a common contributor to science rejection, beyond diverse personal beliefs that are difficult to change. Getting people on the science side of the debate across polarizing topics, such as climate change and vaccination, may depend on changing how people see science relative to themselves and their own lives. We are currently in full swing to figure out how to best implement these insights into science communication in order to bring science closer to the people!

For Further Reading

Većkalov, B., Zarzeczna, N., McPhetres, J., van Harreveld, F., & Rutjens, B. T. (2022). Psychological Distance to Science as a predictor of science skepticism across domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221118184

Rutjens, B. T., Sengupta, N., der Lee, R. van, van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Martens, J. P., Rabelo, A., & Sutton, R. M. (2022). Science skepticism across 24 countries. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(1), 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211001329
 

Bojana Većkalov is a PhD Candidate at the Social Psychology group at the University of Amsterdam, where she is investigating science rejection and ways to counter it. She is broadly interested in the structure, antecedents, and consequences of belief systems.

Natalia Zarzeczna is a post-doctoral researcher at the Social Psychology group of the University of Amsterdam. She is interested in belief systems, stereotypes, and prejudice.

Bastiaan T. Rutjens is an Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Amsterdam. His research interests are in social and cultural psychology, within which he focuses on the psychology of belief systems and worldviews.