Genesis or Evolution of Gender Differences? Worldview-Based Dilemmas in The Processing of Scientific Information.

Stephan Lewandowsky, Jan K Woike, Klaus Oberauer
Author Information
  1. Stephan Lewandowsky: University of Bristol, GB. ORCID
  2. Jan K Woike: Max Planck Institute for Human Development, DE.
  3. Klaus Oberauer: University of Zurich, CH. ORCID

Abstract

Some issues that have been settled by the scientific community, such as evolution, the effectiveness of vaccinations, and the role of CO emissions in climate change, continue to be rejected by segments of the public. This rejection is typically driven by people's worldviews, and to date most research has found that conservatives are uniformly more likely to reject scientific findings than liberals across a number of domains. We report a large (N > 1,000) preregistered study that addresses two questions: First, can we find science denial on the left? Endorsement of pseudoscientific complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has been anecdotally cited as being more consonant with liberals than conservatives. Against this claim, we found more support for CAM among conservatives than liberals. Second, we asked how liberals and conservatives resolve dilemmas in which an issue triggers two opposing facets of their worldviews. We probed attitudes on gender equality and the evolution of sex differences-two constructs that may create conflicts for liberals (who endorse evolution but also equality) and conservatives (who endorse gender differences but are sceptical of evolution). We find that many conservatives reject both gender equality and evolution of sex differences, and instead embrace "naturally occurring" gender differences. Many liberals, by contrast, reject evolved gender differences, as well as naturally occurring gender differences, while nonetheless strongly endorsing evolution.

Keywords

References

  1. Science. 2016 Oct 14;354(6309):182-183 [PMID: 27738161]
  2. JAMA Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;4(10):1375-1381 [PMID: 30027204]
  3. PLoS One. 2013 Dec 11;8(12):e82131 [PMID: 24349200]
  4. Theory Biosci. 2017 Jun;136(1-2):31-48 [PMID: 27766483]
  5. Eur J Public Health. 2019 Jun 1;29(3):512-516 [PMID: 30801109]
  6. Cognition. 2019 Jul;188:39-50 [PMID: 29935897]
  7. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):356-61 [PMID: 9652634]
  8. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 01;10(9):e0132562 [PMID: 26325522]
  9. Science. 2006 Aug 11;313(5788):765-6 [PMID: 16902112]
  10. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 Apr 25;63(16):352-5 [PMID: 24759657]
  11. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2018 Mar;44(3):384-405 [PMID: 29191107]
  12. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012 Aug;141(3):423-8 [PMID: 21928924]
  13. Health (London). 2009 Mar;13(2):131-55 [PMID: 19228825]
  14. Vaccine. 2007 May 16;25(20):3996-4002 [PMID: 17395344]
  15. Complement Ther Med. 2003 Mar;11(1):33-8 [PMID: 12667973]
  16. Psychol Health. 2011 Mar;26(3):371-82 [PMID: 20419560]
  17. Psychol Sci. 2018 Apr;29(4):581-593 [PMID: 29442575]
  18. Law Hum Behav. 2010 Dec;34(6):501-16 [PMID: 20076997]
  19. PLoS One. 2018 Jan 25;13(1):e0191728 [PMID: 29370265]
  20. Multivariate Behav Res. 2005 Apr 1;40(2):235-59 [PMID: 26760108]
  21. Curr Biol. 2018 Aug 20;28(16):R867-R868 [PMID: 30130503]
  22. PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0158382 [PMID: 27391965]
  23. Cerebrum. 2014 Apr 01;2014:5 [PMID: 25009695]
  24. Vaccine. 2018 Feb 21;36(9):1227-1234 [PMID: 29395527]
  25. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Jan;196:106-114 [PMID: 29175699]
  26. Soc Sci Med (1967). 1979 Jun;13A(4):483-5 [PMID: 472774]
  27. Evol Hum Behav. 2018 May;39(3):257-268 [PMID: 38827656]
  28. Sociol Compass. 2014 Jun;8(6):805-822 [PMID: 25177359]
  29. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013 Nov;17(11):550-1 [PMID: 24176517]
  30. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 30;10(9):e0138208 [PMID: 26422694]
  31. Health Psychol. 2018 Apr;37(4):307-315 [PMID: 29389158]
  32. PLoS One. 2013 Oct 02;8(10):e75637 [PMID: 24098391]
  33. Vaccine. 2001 Oct 15;20 Suppl 1:S90-3; discussion S89 [PMID: 11587822]
  34. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 May;8(3):340-57 [PMID: 26172976]
  35. Science. 2012 Apr 27;336(6080):493-6 [PMID: 22539725]
  36. Politics Life Sci. 2004 Sep;23(2):55-61 [PMID: 16859387]
  37. Psychol Sci. 2012 Oct 1;23(10):1176-85 [PMID: 22933455]
  38. PLoS One. 2016 Mar 23;11(3):e0149989 [PMID: 27008093]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0evolutionconservativesliberalsgenderdifferencesrejectequalityscientificworldviewsfoundtwofindCAMsexendorsecognitionissuessettledcommunityeffectivenessvaccinationsroleCOemissionsclimatechangecontinuerejectedsegmentspublicrejectiontypicallydrivenpeople'sdateresearchuniformlylikelyfindingsacrossnumberdomainsreportlargeN>1000preregisteredstudyaddressesquestions:Firstcansciencedenialleft?EndorsementpseudoscientificcomplementaryalternativemedicinesanecdotallycitedconsonantclaimsupportamongSecondaskedresolvedilemmasissuetriggersopposingfacetsprobedattitudesdifferences-twoconstructsmaycreateconflictsalsoscepticalmanyinsteadembrace"naturallyoccurring"ManycontrastevolvedwellnaturallyoccurringnonethelessstronglyendorsingGenesisEvolutionGenderDifferences?Worldview-BasedDilemmasProcessingScientificInformationEmotionReasoningSocial

Similar Articles

Cited By (14)