The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Motivated Rejection of Science
Open accessAbstract
Some scientifically well-established results—such as the fact that emission of greenhouse gases produces global warming—are rejected by sizable proportions of the population in the United States and other countries. Rejection of scientific findings is mostly driven by motivated cognition: People tend to reject findings that threaten their core beliefs or worldview. At present, rejection of scientific findings by the U.S. public is more prevalent on the political right than the left. Yet the cognitive mechanisms driving rejection of science, such as the superficial processing of evidence toward the desired interpretation, are found regardless of political orientation. General education and scientific literacy do not mitigate rejection of science but, rather, increase the polarization of opinions along partisan lines. In contrast, specific knowledge about the mechanisms underlying a scientific result—such as human-made climate change—can increase the acceptance of that result.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
Self-citationThe Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks
Braman, D., Kahan, D. M., Peters, E. M., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., & Mandel, G. N. (2012) · Scholarly Commons - George Washington University Law School (George Washington University) · Cited by 2,431
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 · Cited by 1,360
Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.003 · Cited by 1,217
Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1320645111 · Cited by 1,159
Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0403-y · Cited by 1,123
Gauchat, G. (2012) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122412438225 · Cited by 1,091
Defeating Kyoto: The Conservative Movement's Impact on U.S. Climate Change Policy
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.348 · Cited by 903
Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government
KAHAN, D. M., PETERS, E., DAWSON, E. C., & SLOVIC, P. (2017) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2016.2 · Cited by 883
Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story
Gangarosa, E., Galazka, A., Wolfe, C., Phillips, L., Miller, E., Chen, R., & Gangarosa, R. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)04334-1 · Cited by 749
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Oreskes N., 2010, Merchants of doubt
- 10.1126/science.1208890 · doi:10.1126/science.1208890
- Inhofe J., 2012, The greatest hoax: How the global warming conspiracy threatens your future
- 10.1007/s10979-009-9201-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · DOI
- 10.2139/ssrn.2319992 · DOI
- 10.1038/NCLIMATE1547 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era.
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017) · Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008 · Cited by 1,985
Self-citationSusceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world
Roozenbeek, J., Schneider, C. R., Dryhurst, S., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., & van der Linden, S. (2020) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.201199 · Cited by 1,447
The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y · Cited by 1,372
Self-citationInoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change
van der Linden, S., Leiserowitz, A., Rosenthal, S., & Maibach, E. (2017) · Global Challenges · doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 · Cited by 1,058
Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Generating Advocacy Behavior
Nabi, R. L., Gustafson, A., & Jensen, R. (2018) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547018776019 · Cited by 461
Metadata
- Authors
- Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K.
- Venue
- Current Directions in Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 217-222
- ISSN
- 0963-7214 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8721
- OpenAlex
- W2492054209
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 44
- FWCI
- 80.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motivated Rejection of Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0963721416654436
- The paper
- Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated Rejection of Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416654436
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
