Blind Trust, Blind Skepticism: Liberals’ & Conservatives’ Response to Academic Research

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE American Politics Research Pub Date : 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1177/1532673x231206136
Lauren Ratliff Santoro, Emily Sydnor
{"title":"Blind Trust, Blind Skepticism: Liberals’ & Conservatives’ Response to Academic Research","authors":"Lauren Ratliff Santoro, Emily Sydnor","doi":"10.1177/1532673x231206136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public perceptions of science and scientific institutions have become more negative in recent years, especially among individuals who identify as ideologically conservative in the United States. While there is much work investigating the origins and implications of this decline, we focus instead on understanding the ways in which symbols of scientific expertise, like the university, convey information in a politicized environment. Universities are seen as trusted scientific experts or biased propagandists, depending on individuals’ ideological identification. Are individuals more likely to believe research coming out of universities that they perceive to reflect their own ideological biases? This project looks at the effect of the academic source cue – the university label – on individual assessments of the research that these universities produce. Drawing on results from two survey experiments focused on climate change and racial wealth disparity research, we find that while liberals are more likely to believe research that confirms their previously held beliefs, they are also more likely to believe incongruent information when it comes from a university that they believe shares their bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain skeptical of academic research despite the message or its’ source. The findings point toward both “blind trust” and “blind skepticism” in academic institutions.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Politics Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x231206136","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public perceptions of science and scientific institutions have become more negative in recent years, especially among individuals who identify as ideologically conservative in the United States. While there is much work investigating the origins and implications of this decline, we focus instead on understanding the ways in which symbols of scientific expertise, like the university, convey information in a politicized environment. Universities are seen as trusted scientific experts or biased propagandists, depending on individuals’ ideological identification. Are individuals more likely to believe research coming out of universities that they perceive to reflect their own ideological biases? This project looks at the effect of the academic source cue – the university label – on individual assessments of the research that these universities produce. Drawing on results from two survey experiments focused on climate change and racial wealth disparity research, we find that while liberals are more likely to believe research that confirms their previously held beliefs, they are also more likely to believe incongruent information when it comes from a university that they believe shares their bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain skeptical of academic research despite the message or its’ source. The findings point toward both “blind trust” and “blind skepticism” in academic institutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
盲目信任,盲目怀疑:自由主义者保守派对学术研究的回应
近年来,公众对科学和科学机构的看法变得更加消极,尤其是在美国那些意识形态上保守的人当中。虽然有很多工作在调查这种衰落的起源和影响,但我们的重点是理解科学专业知识的象征,如大学,在政治化的环境中传达信息的方式。根据个人的意识形态认同,大学被视为值得信赖的科学专家或有偏见的宣传机构。个人是否更倾向于相信他们认为反映自己意识形态偏见的大学研究成果?这个项目着眼于学术来源线索——大学标签——对这些大学产生的研究的个人评估的影响。根据两项关于气候变化和种族财富差距研究的调查实验的结果,我们发现,尽管自由主义者更有可能相信证实他们先前信念的研究,但他们也更有可能相信来自他们认为与他们有相同偏见的大学的不一致信息。另一方面,保守主义者仍然对学术研究持怀疑态度,尽管这些信息或其来源。研究结果指出了学术机构的“盲目信任”和“盲目怀疑”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
American Politics Research
American Politics Research POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: The purpose of Amercian Politics Research is to promote and disseminate high-quality research in all areas of American politics, including local, state, and national. American Politics Research will publish significant studies concerning American political behavior, political parties, public opinion, legislative behavior, courts and the legal process, executive and administrative politics, public policy, and all other topics appropriate to our understanding of American government and politics. Manuscripts from all social science disciplines are welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Partisan Differences in Voters’ Desire for Punishment in Response to Politicians’ Moral Transgressions Voting in the Mall: Ideology, Grievance, and Political Consumerism The Size and Structure of the Gender Gap in Economic Evaluations The Role of Self-Threat and Self-Affirmation in Initiation of Political Conversations Race or Place: Partisanship Among Black Rural Voters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1