How do “double skeptics” affect government policy on climate and vaccination?

Governments and other policymakers around the world are grappling with how to deal with people skeptical of official positions and guidelines, such as climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers.

Previous research has linked this skepticism to public distrust of scientists, while other studies have shown that psychologically motivated skeptical attitudes are difficult to erode by factors such as bias toward regard for elite institutions or a conservative worldview.

New research from the University of Cambridge, reported in the journal PLOS ONEsuggests that a more tailored approach could help dispel some of this skepticism, which could have implications for how governments deal with the skepticism of their constituents.

“Research shows that there are other approaches than solving these problems universally,” said study co-author Dr Zeynep Clulow of Cambridge Judge Business School. “There are different types of skeptics, which requires different strategies aimed at dispelling skepticism.”

“These findings can help policymakers develop more targeted strategies and focus more of their attention on persuadable groups, rather than resigning themselves to viewing every skeptic as a consistent conspirator on every issue,” said co-author, Professor David Reiner, also of the Cambridge Judge. Business school.

The research analyzed the drivers of skepticism towards climate change and COVID-19 vaccination, based on a survey carried out in early 2021 by polling company Ipsos Mori, when most countries had went through the first wave of the pandemic and had started rolling out vaccination programs. Nationally representative samples of 2,000 people were surveyed in each of eight countries: Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The study found that while the vast majority of people support COVID-19 vaccination and recognize the threats posed by climate change, some small groups are skeptical about climate change or COVID-19 vaccination, and an even smaller group is skeptical about COVID-19 vaccination. both.

For this small group of “double skeptics,” their attitudes were driven by an underlying skeptical mindset, one that distrusted institutions in general, including scientists and the mainstream media.

In contrast, single-issue skeptics primarily distrusted scientists. The research found that people who completely distrust scientists were about four times more likely to be antivaxxers and five times more likely to be climate skeptics than double skeptics.

The distinction, the researchers say, suggests that efforts to overcome isolated predictors of skepticism, such as building trust in scientists, economic support, and information campaigns, are more likely to build support for policies. designed to create societal responses to global challenges.

The same is not true for dual skeptics: such strategies are likely to be ineffective, or even counterproductive, for people whose skepticism is associated with a more generalized skeptical worldview.

Double skeptics tend to possess many of the typical skeptical characteristics, such as a strong distrust of social institutions and a right-wing political orientation, which collectively suggest an underlying skeptical mindset rather than a specific distrust of scientists.

Reasons why distrust of scientists might lead to skepticism about climate change and COVID-19 vaccination include the complex nature of both issues, which make it difficult for non-experts to understand them. scientific, as well as the financial and behavioral costs of mitigating these problems.

The surveys asked respondents to rate their trust in academic 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 the trust placed in specific sources, including oil and gas companies, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg and social media.

While many respondents showed some degree of skepticism (35% did not view climate change as a major threat to their country, and 17% were unlikely to get vaccinated against COVID-19 if offered them one), only a very small minority (1.4%) chose the most skeptical answer with regard to these two questions.

Even in the United States, only 4% of respondents were skeptical of these two questions, and this group represented less than 2% of the sample in the other seven countries. Similarly, fewer than 5% of respondents in six countries completely rejected the threat of climate change (Australia at 9% and the United States at 14% were higher).

The research also found that skepticism is inversely related to education, scientific knowledge and perceived responsibility in combating climate change. Skepticism was higher among men, people who distrust television and those with right-wing political views.

The researchers also found that people who prioritized the economy over mitigating climate change or COVID-19, or both, were much more likely to distrust scientists.

The researchers note two important limitations of their study sample: respondents from emerging economies were recruited in urban centers, 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 conducted when almost no one had received the COVID-19 vaccine and many countries were still under some form of lockdown.

“While recognizing that this is a particularly unusual time, we expect that the finding that dual skeptics represent a small fraction of the total pool of skeptics is robust and we expect that this finding be extended to other topics,” Clulow said.

“Portraying all skeptics as die-hard conspirators is both counterproductive and incorrect,” Reiner said.

“Most climate skeptics don’t really care about getting vaccinated and vice versa. Most skeptics are single-issue skeptics and will need to engage on the details of the issue, which will, no doubt, be , a challenge, but they do not demonstrate the more fundamental and comprehensive skepticism that we find among the double skeptics that extends to all societal institutions and the media.