Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief.
Open accessAbstract
There is often a curious distinction between what the scientific community and the general population believe to be true of dire scientific issues, and this skepticism tends to vary markedly across groups. For instance, in the case of climate change, Republicans (conservatives) are especially skeptical of the relevant science, particularly when they are compared with Democrats (liberals). What causes such radical group differences? We suggest, as have previous accounts, that this phenomenon is often motivated. However, the source of this motivation is not necessarily an aversion to the problem, per se, but an aversion to the solutions associated with the problem. This difference in underlying process holds important implications for understanding, predicting, and influencing motivated skepticism. In 4 studies, we tested this solution aversion explanation for why people are often so divided over evidence and why this divide often occurs so saliently across political party lines. Studies 1, 2, and 3-using correlational and experimental methodologies-demonstrated that Republicans' increased skepticism toward environmental sciences may be partly attributable to a conflict between specific ideological values and the most popularly discussed environmental solutions. Study 4 found that, in a different domain (crime), those holding a more liberal ideology (support for gun control) also show skepticism motivated by solution aversion.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Framing environmental issues in terms of conservative values such as purity, sanctity, commerce or patriotism might lead conservatives to express more support for pro-environmental legislation.
“framing environmental issues in terms of conservative values such as purity, sanctity, commerce or patriotism might lead conservatives to express more support for pro-environmental legislation275–279.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [278]
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022 · see citing works
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · see citing works
Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057 · Cited by 4,008 · see citing works
Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y · Cited by 1,618 · see citing works
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091 · see citing works
The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612449177 · Cited by 928 · see citing works
Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167209351435 · Cited by 720 · see citing works
The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075637 · Cited by 693 · see citing works
Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. E. (2013) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797612457686 · Cited by 638 · see citing works
Fixing the communications failure
Kahan, D. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/463296a · Cited by 602 · see citing works
The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Vaughan, S. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1720 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making carbon pricing work for citizens
Klenert, D., Mattauch, L., Combet, E., Edenhofer, O., Hepburn, C., Rafaty, R., & Stern, N. (2018) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0201-2 · Cited by 793 · see citing works
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
The US news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication
Bolsen, T., & Shapiro, M. A. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2017.1397039 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Improving Climate Change Acceptance Among U.S. Conservatives Through Value-Based Message Targeting
Dixon, G., Hmielowski, J., & Ma, Y. (2017) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547017715473 · Cited by 222 · see citing works
The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Clark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning
Bayes, R., Druckman, J. N., Goods, A., & Molden, D. C. (2020) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12663 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Jachimowicz, J. M., To, C., Agasi, S., Côté, S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2019) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.06.002 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Moral coherence processes: constructing culpability and consequences
Clark, C. J., Chen, E. E., & Ditto, P. H. (2015) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.016 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Understanding and Combating Misinformation Across 16 Countries on Six Continents
Arechar, A. A., Allen, J. N. L., Berinsky, A. J., Cole, R., Epstein, Z., Garimella, K., Gully, A., Lu, J. G., Ross, R. M., Stagnaro, M., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/a9frz · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. C.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- ORCID
- Kay, Aaron C.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 809-824
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2077150079
- Cited by
- 560
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 85 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 87.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DukeSpace (Duke University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Keywords
- ideology, partisanship, climate change skepticism, environmental solutions, gun control attitudes, crime attitudes, ideological values, science skepticism
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Firearms, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Politics, Thinking, Climate Change
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
