Conservative Americans’ distrust of science broader than previously thought
American conservatives have less trust in all disciplines of science than their liberal compatriots. Five attempts to restore that confidence have had no effect, conclude University of Amsterdam researchers in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. “A conservative government can act as a flywheel.”
The fact that many conservative Americans have little use for science has become clear in recent months from the reckless measures and cutbacks introduced by the Trump administration. It mainly shows what the consequences can be when mistrust is translated into concrete policy, says UvA psychologist Bastiaan Rutjens, who in 2024 investigated the trust in science among 7,800 Americans. “I don’t expect the attitudes of Americans to have changed much since then, but we have been caught up with reality in recent months. Statements from the White House about science can act as a flywheel.”
How much confidence do conservative Americans still have in science?
“If you had to express it in a grade on a scale from 1 to 10, conservative Americans would give science an average of a seven, not disastrously low, but still relatively high. Liberals rate it higher, roughly an eight.’
“It was previously thought that conservative Americans mainly distrusted scientific disciplines that are at odds with their world view: such as climate science and research into infectious diseases, as became clear with the corona pandemic. It was thought that confidence in chemistry or economics, for example, would be higher.”
“That appears not to be the case. Our research shows that the distrust is much broader than we previously thought. Conservatives score lower on confidence in all fields than liberals. These differences are greatest in virology and climate science.”
Why do conservative Americans trust science less than liberals?
“That is difficult to say. Since the 1980s, confidence in science has plummeted among conservatives, as sociologist Gorden Gauchat pointed out in 2012 in American Sociological Review, while it has remained stable among liberals. It may have something to do with science going against the norms and values of conservative Americans, but that is not the whole story. It may also have something to do with the political discourse in America, where universities are seen as ‘left-wing strongholds’, something for the Democrats or ‘left-wing elite’.”
In the study, you try to increase American conservatives’ trust in science by bringing science in line with Republican norms and values and introducing role models such as Republican politician and Harvard professor Henry Kissinger. None of that worked. Is that alarming?
“Yes and no. The form of the interventions may have played a role in this: participants were only given short texts to read. If you make it more personal by having a role model give a lecture, or make it more interactive, I expect – possibly – more effect.”
What could help?
“Communicating more positively about science and engaging people more. Science often deals with the negative: scientists warning about the consequences of climate change and pandemics. My message is to also try to show how science has made our lives more comfortable. The telephone in your hand is also a product of science. There is also a role for science communicators and scientists themselves in this.”
Can the tide still be turned in America?
“Perhaps some of the conservatives can still be won over by showing them what science can do for them. Of course, it’s not as if all conservatives have completely disregarded science – we’re looking at averages and the average level of trust is lower among conservatives. However, there will be a diehard group that will be very difficult to win over.”
What does the situation in America say about the Netherlands?
“On the one hand, it is of course true that the Netherlands lags a few years behind America in many things, but at the same time, we have a fundamentally different political system here. I think there is still time to prevent the same thing from happening here. That does mean that we have to think about how science can be for everyone: not just for the academically educated.”
