How do ‘double skeptics’ affect government policy on climate and vaccination?

(Press-News.org) Governments and other policymakers around the world wrestle with how to deal with people who are sceptical of official positions and guidelines, such as climate sceptics and antivaxxers.

Earlier research has linked such scepticism to distrust of scientists among members of the public, while other studies have shown that it is difficult to erode sceptical attitudes that are psychologically motivated by factors such as bias against elite institutions or a conservative world view.

New research from the University of Cambridge, reported in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests a more tailored approach could help dispel some of this scepticism, which could have implications for the way governments deal with scepticism among their constituents.

“The research shows that there are other approaches than addressing these issues in a one-size-fits-all manner,” said study co-author Dr Zeynep Clulow from Cambridge Judge Business School. “There are different types of sceptics, so this requires different strategies aimed at dispelling scepticism.”

“These findings can help policymakers develop more targeted strategies and focus more attention on groups that are persuadable, rather than being resigned to considering every sceptic to be some consistent conspiracist on every issue,” said co-author Professor David Reiner, also from Cambridge Judge Business School.

The research analysed the drivers of scepticism toward climate change and Covid-19 vaccination, based on a survey taken in early 2021 by polling firm Ipsos Mori, when most countries had been through the first wave of the pandemic and begun rolling out vaccination programmes. Nationally-representative samples of 2000 people were polled in each of eight countries: Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the UK and the US.

The study found that while the vast majority of people support Covid-19 vaccinations and recognise the threats posed by climate change, there were small groups who are sceptical of either climate change or Covid-19 vaccination, and an even smaller group who were sceptical of both.

For this smaller group of ‘double sceptics’, their attitudes were motivated by an underlying sceptical mindset, which was distrustful of institutions in general, including scientists and mainstream media.

Single-issue sceptics, in contrast, were primarily distrustful of scientists. The research found that people who completely distrust scientists were approximately four times more likely to be antivaxxers and five times more likely to be climate sceptics than double sceptics.

According to the researchers, this distinction suggests that efforts to overcome isolated predictors of scepticism – such as building trust in scientists, economic support and information campaigns – are more likely to boost support for policies designed to create societal responses to global challenges.

The same is not true for double sceptics: such strategies are likely to be ineffective or even counter-productive for people whose scepticism is associated with a more generalised sceptical worldview.

Double sceptics tend to possess many of the typical sceptic characteristics such as high distrust in social institutions and right-wing political orientation, which are collectively suggestive of an underlying sceptic mindset rather than a specific distrust of scientists.

Reasons why distrust in scientists might drive scepticism on climate change and Covid-19 vaccination include the complex nature of both issues that make it difficult for non-scientists to fully understand, and the financial and behavioural costs related to mitigation of these issues.

The surveys asked respondents to rate their trust in university scientists as part of a broader question that also probed trust in institutions and actors ranging from corporations to environmental NGOs to television news. They were also asked to rate trust in certain specific sources, including oil and gas companies, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg, and social media.

While many respondents showed some degree of scepticism (35% did not consider climate change a major threat to their country, and 17% were unlikely to take a Covid-19 vaccine if offered one), only a very small minority (1.4%) chose the most sceptical response towards both issues. Even in the United States, only 4% of respondents were sceptical towards both issues and that group was less than 2% of the sample in the other seven countries.  Similarly, less than 5% of respondents in six countries completely dismissed the threat of climate change (Australia at 9% and the US at 14% were higher).

The research also found that scepticism is inversely related with education, science knowledge, and perceived responsibility for combating climate change. Scepticism was higher among men, people who distrust television, and those with right-wing political views.

The researchers also found that people who prioritised the economy over the mitigation of climate change or Covid-19, or both, were significantly more likely to distrust scientists.

The researchers note two important limitations of their study sample: respondents in emerging economies were recruited from urban centres, so the views of rural citizens may not be accurately reflected; and Chinese respondents were not asked about their political views.

The other caveat is that the survey was taken when almost no one had received the Covid-19 vaccine and when many countries were still under some form of lockdown.

“While acknowledging that this was a particularly unusual time, we expect the finding that double sceptics comprise a small fraction of total pool of sceptics to be robust and we would expect to see this finding extended to other topics,” said Clulow.

“Painting all sceptics as irredeemable conspiracists is both counterproductive and incorrect,” said Reiner. “Most climate sceptics are not very concerned about taking a vaccine and vice versa. Most sceptics are single-issue sceptics and will need to be engaged on the specifics of the issue, which will, no doubt, be challenging, but they do not exhibit the more fundamental, all-encompassing scepticism we find among double-sceptics that extends to all societal institutions and media outlets.”

END