Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain
Governments and other policymakers around the world are struggling with how to deal with climate change skeptics, anti-vaxxers and others who are skeptical of official positions and guidelines.
Previous research has linked this skepticism to distrust of scientists in the general public, while other studies have linked it to psychological motivation by factors such as bias against elite organizations and conservative worldviews. Sustaining skepticism has proven difficult.
New research from the University of Cambridge, reported in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests that a more tailored approach could help dispel some of this skepticism, allowing governments to better understand voters’ This could affect how we deal with skepticism among people.
Study co-author Dr Zeynep Clulow from Cambridge Judge Business School said: “This study shows that there are other approaches than a one-size-fits-all approach to these problems.” Ta. “There are different types of skeptics, so we need different strategies to overcome skepticism.”
“These findings suggest that policymakers can develop more targeted strategies to encourage more persuasive groups, rather than resigning all skeptics to consistent conspiracy theorists on all issues. “It helps people focus their attention,” said co-author Professor David Reiner, also a Cambridge judge. business school.
The study builds on research conducted by pollster Ipsos Mori in early 2021, when most countries had weathered the first wave of the pandemic and were beginning to roll out vaccination programs. We analyzed the factors contributing to skepticism toward vaccination. A representative sample of 2,000 people was surveyed in eight countries: Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The study found that while the majority of people support COVID-19 vaccination and recognize the threat posed by climate change, they are skeptical about either climate change or COVID-19 vaccination. It turns out that there are a small group of people who are skeptical about vaccination, and an even smaller group who are skeptical about vaccination. both.
For this small group of “double skeptics,” their attitudes were motivated by an underlying skepticism: distrust of scientists and institutions in general, including the mainstream media.
In contrast, single-issue skeptics were primarily distrustful of scientists. The study found that people who don’t fully trust scientists are about four times more likely to be anti-vaxxers and five times more likely to be climate change skeptics than dual skeptics. It turns out.
According to the researchers, this distinction means that efforts to overcome isolated predictors of skepticism, such as building trust in scientists, financial support, and information campaigns, generate societal responses to global challenges. This suggests that there is a high possibility of increasing support for policies aimed at
The same is not true for double skeptics. Such strategies may be ineffective or counterproductive for people whose skepticism is associated with a more generalized skeptical worldview.
Double skeptics tend to have many of the typical characteristics of skepticism, such as a strong distrust of social institutions and right-wing political orientation, and these are rooted in an underlying rather than specific distrust of scientists. This comprehensively suggests a skeptical mindset.
The reasons why mistrust of scientists drives skepticism about climate change and COVID-19 vaccinations include the complex nature of both issues, which are difficult for non-scientists to fully understand; includes the economic and behavioral costs associated with mitigation.
The survey asked respondents to rate their level of trust in university scientists as part of a broader set of questions that also explored trust in institutions and actors ranging from corporations to environmental NGOs and television news. They were also asked to rate their trust in specific sources, including oil and gas companies, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg and social media.
Although many respondents expressed some degree of skepticism (35% do not think climate change is a major threat to their country and 17% are unlikely to take a COVID-19 vaccine even if it is offered) ), only a minority (1.4%) chose it. The most skeptical reaction to both issues.
Even in the United States, only 4% of respondents were skeptical about both issues, and that group represented less than 2% of samples in seven other countries. Similarly, less than 5% of respondents in six countries completely rejected the threat of climate change (9% in Australia and 14% in the US were even higher).
The study also found that skepticism was inversely correlated with education, scientific knowledge, and perceived responsibility to fight climate change. Skepticism was higher among men, those who distrust television, and those with right-wing political views.
The researchers also found that people who prioritized the economy over mitigating climate change, COVID-19, or both were significantly more likely to distrust scientists.
The researchers note two important limitations of the study sample. First, respondents from emerging economies were drawn from urban centers, which may not accurately reflect the views of rural residents. And Chinese respondents were not asked about their political views.
Another caveat is that the study was conducted at a time when few people had received the coronavirus vaccine and many countries were still under some form of lockdown.
“While we know this has been a particularly unusual time, we expect the finding that double skeptics make up a small portion of all skeptics to be robust; We hope it will expand to other topics as well,” Clulow said.
“It is counterproductive and wrong to paint all skeptics as irredeemable conspiracy theorists,” Reiner said.
“Most climate change skeptics aren’t too worried about getting vaccinated, and vice versa. Most skeptics are single-issue skeptics, and they don’t need to address the details of the problem. “There is no doubt that it is difficult, but they do not express such a view.” It has spread to ”
More information: How to distinguish between climate change skeptics, anti-vaxxers, and persistent skeptics: Evidence from a multi-country survey of public attitudes, PLoS ONE (2024). www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/u … 3/12/eprg-wp2205.pdf
Provided by University of Cambridge
Quote: How will ‘double skepticism’ affect government policy on climate and vaccination? (October 2, 2024) Retrieved October 2, 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-10-sketics-affect-policy-climate-vaccination.html
This document is subject to copyright. No part may be reproduced without written permission, except in fair dealing for personal study or research purposes. Content is provided for informational purposes only.
