Max Planck Institute for Human Development.
Department of Psychology, University of Tubingen.
Am Psychol. 2022 Oct;77(7):822-835. doi: 10.1037/amp0000982. Epub 2022 Apr 25.
A substantial literature shows that public polarization over climate change in the U.S. is most pronounced among the science literate. A dominant explanation for this phenomenon is that science literacy amplifies motivated reasoning, the tendency to interpret evidence such that it confirms prior beliefs. The present study tests the biasing account of science literacy in a study among the U.S. population that investigated both interpretation of climate change evidence and repeated belief-updating. Results replicated the typical correlational pattern of political polarization as a function of science literacy. However, results delivered little support for the core causal claim of the biasing account-that science literacy drives motivated reasoning. Hence, these results speak against a mechanism whereby science literacy driving motivated reasoning could explain polarized climate change beliefs among the science literate. This study adds to our growing understanding of the role of science literacy for public beliefs about contested science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
大量文献表明，在美国，公众对气候变化的两极分化在科学素养人群中最为明显。对于这种现象的一个主要解释是，科学素养会放大动机推理，即人们倾向于根据自己的先入为主的观念来解释证据。本研究通过一项针对美国人口的研究检验了科学素养的这种偏见解释，该研究既调查了对气候变化证据的解释，也调查了反复更新信仰的情况。结果复制了政治两极分化的典型相关模式，这是科学素养的函数。然而，结果几乎没有支持偏见解释的核心因果主张，即科学素养驱动动机推理。因此，这些结果表明，科学素养驱动动机推理的机制无法解释科学素养人群中对气候变化的两极分化信念。这项研究增加了我们对科学素养在公众对有争议的科学的看法中的作用的理解。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2022 APA，保留所有权利）。
