This article explores how different types of skepticism, particularly “double skeptics”—those who are skeptical of both climate change and COVID-19 vaccinations—impact government policy. Research indicates that targeted strategies, rather than a uniform approach, are necessary to effectively engage these groups. The study reveals that while skepticism exists, the majority of the population supports climate actions and vaccinations, highlighting the importance of understanding the motivations behind skepticism for better policy development.
Governments worldwide grapple with how to address individuals skeptical of established scientific guidance regarding climate change and vaccination, commonly referred to as climate skeptics and antivaxxers. Prior research has linked such skepticism to a general distrust of scientists, and other studies suggest that these attitudes are often resistant to change due to psychological factors such as bias against elite institutions or conservative worldviews. Recent findings from the University of Cambridge, published in the journal PLOS ONE, advocate for a more nuanced approach to dealing with skepticism, highlighting that different types of skeptics require tailored strategies to effectively engage and persuade them. Dr. Zeynep Clulow, a co-author of the study, emphasized, “The research shows that there are other approaches than addressing these issues in a one-size-fits-all manner… this requires different strategies aimed at dispelling skepticism.” Professor David Reiner, also a co-author, noted that the study’s insights could enable policymakers to devise more targeted strategies, focusing on groups that are open to persuasion rather than assuming all skeptics adopt a uniform conspiratorial stance across various issues. The research analyzed survey data collected in early 2021 from individuals in eight countries—Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Although a majority demonstrated support for COVID-19 vaccinations and recognized climate change as a significant threat, a small cohort expressed skepticism regarding one or both issues. This “double skeptic” group exhibited a generalized skeptical mindset, characterized by profound distrust towards institutions, including scientific authorities and mainstream media, distinguishing them from single-issue skeptics who primarily distrust scientists. Intriguingly, individuals with complete distrust in scientists were found to be significantly more likely to reject vaccinations and deny climate change compared to double skeptics. The study posits that addressing specific reasons behind skepticism—such as enhancing trust in scientists, providing economic support, and delivering compelling information—might be more effective for single-issue skeptics. However, similar strategies appear unlikely to foster change among double skeptics, whose attitudes stem from a broader, more entrenched skepticism. Evidence also indicates that skepticism correlates inversely with educational attainment, scientific literacy, and personal responsibility concerning climate action. The prevalence of skepticism appears higher among men, individuals who harbor distrust towards traditional media, and those with right-wing political affiliations. While the research indicates that double skeptics constitute a minuscule segment of the broader skeptical population—often less than 2% in most surveyed nations—two limitations were noted. Urban-centered recruitment may not accurately capture the views of rural populations, and the absence of political view inquiries among Chinese respondents limits generalizability. The analysis reflects skepticism as a pervasive sentiment with potent implications for how policymakers communicate about climate change and public health issues.
The article discusses the challenge policymakers face in dealing with individuals who are skeptical of scientific consensus on issues like climate change and vaccination. It highlights past research showing a link between skepticism and distrust in scientific authorities. The recent study from the University of Cambridge seeks to understand different types of skeptics—particularly, those referred to as “double skeptics,” who question both climate science and COVID-19 vaccinations. Through a survey across various countries, the researchers aim to explore how understanding these different skepticism profiles can inform more effective governmental strategies to promote scientific acceptance and public health measures.
The findings from the University of Cambridge offer crucial insights into how to effectively engage with different types of skeptics regarding climate change and vaccinations. Policymakers are encouraged to avoid a blanket approach and to instead develop targeted strategies that address the unique motivations behind skepticism. Recognizing that double skeptics exhibit a general distrust of institutions, rather than issues-specific concerns, suggests that different methods of persuasion may be necessary for different groups. This nuanced understanding could enhance efforts to foster trust in science and compliance with public health guidance.
Original Source: phys.org
