Public Interpretations of and Responses to Scientific Disputes

Given expanding publicity about conflicts among, and distrust of, authorities, scientific disagreements may individually or collectively undermine lay trust in support for science and scientists. Potential outcomes may include misconstruing the true nature of a field’s uncertainties, ignoring expert advice on protecting oneself, or reducing support for use of science in policymaking or education. This research aims to answer three questions: 1) How do lay people interpret disagreement among scientists in terms of dispute origins and cues to which of the contending sides is most credible?; 2) What beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors about the disputed topic or science stem from these lay interpretations?; and 3) How malleable are such interpretations and responses to interventions (i.e., education on scientific process)? Diverse public samples saw scenarios involving two-sided mass disputes on topics varying in public salience, impacts, and familiarity, such as the nature of dark matter, desirable dietary salt intake, or nanotechnology. The research probed the relative role of knowledge, values, self-interest, history, and vote-counting as factor in lay beliefs about why scientific disputes occur (e.g., self-interest, incompetence, inherent complexity of the topic), cues to disputants’ credibility (e.g., perceived uncertainty of the field, credentials, salient value similarity, self-interest), lay responses to disputes among scientists, and messages intended to inform or reduce individual defensiveness about disputes.<br> <br>