The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science

Sarah and I are doing some fun work on message framing.

This relevant piece in Mother Jones is packed with pretty basic psychology studies, but it's a fun refresher!

Some highlights:

• If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn't trigger a defensive, emotional reaction. (example - climate change acceptance increases in a pro-industry frame)
• Don't lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values - so as to give the facts a fighting chance.
• We may think we're being scientists, but we're actually being laywers. Our "reasoning" is means to a predetermined end - winning our "case" - and is shot through with biases. (Source)
• People respond to scientific or technical evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs (Source)
• People rejected the validity of a scientific source because its conclusion contradicted their deeply held views. (Source)
• The study subjects weren't "anti-science"—not in their own minds, anyway. It's just that "science" was whatever they wanted it to be. (Source)
• Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted the facts - they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever. (example - not even Bush's own words could change the minds of Bush voters who believed there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link)
• People with knowledge about an issue they dislike can generate more reasons to explain why they're right, so their minds are harder to change. (example - Republicans who think they understand the issue of global warning are least concerned)