The Role of Moral Conviction in Shaping Public Attitudes About Science and the Environment

Abstract

Despite high-profile exemplars in the cases of climate change, childhood vaccination, and the COVID-19 pandemic, public divides over science in the United States are not yet well-understood. Evidence suggests that people’s issue positions can color how they engage with the science around the issue, driving them to ignore counter-attitudinal scientific evidence, doubt the credibility of scientists and studies that produce such evidence, and derogate others who hold a different position than their own as ignorant, stupid, or dishonest. In this project, I argue that one factor that may exacerbate these tendencies is moral conviction, or the perception that one’s attitude on an issue is a matter of moral right and wrong. To evaluate this proposition, I investigate the correlates and consequences of holding issue attitudes with strong moral conviction across three policy issues in which science is central: combating climate change, labeling genetically modified food, and advancing gene editing therapies. Taken together, I find that people with strong moral conviction can still be persuaded by counter-attitudinal scientific evidence, even as they are more negatively critical of it and of people who endorse a view different than their own. These findings bring additional nuance to our understanding of the role of science in morally charged policy debates, alleviating fears about widespread science rejection and derogation while also pointing to new areas of concern.