Cited by 693Misinformation and Its ImpactsClimate Change Communication and PerceptionScience and Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 75 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Among American Conservatives, but not Liberals, trust in science has been declining since the 1970's. Climate science has become particularly polarized, with Conservatives being more likely than Liberals to reject the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the globe. Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking. There are also growing indications that rejection of science is suffused by conspiracist ideation, that is the general tendency to endorse conspiracy theories including the specific beliefs that inconvenient scientific findings constitute a "hoax." METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population and show that conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predict rejection of climate science, in contrast to their weaker and opposing effects on acceptance of vaccinations. The two worldview variables do not predict opposition to GM. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, predicts rejection of all three scientific propositions, albeit to greatly varying extents. Greater endorsement of a diverse set of conspiracy theories predicts opposition to GM foods, vaccinations, and climate science. CONCLUSIONS: Free-market worldviews are an important predictor of the rejection of scientific findings that have potential regulatory implications, such as climate science, but not necessarily of other scientific issues. Conspiracist ideation, by contrast, is associated with the rejection of all scientific propositions tested. We highlight the manifold cognitive reasons why conspiracist ideation would stand in opposition to the scientific method. The involvement of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science has implications for science communicators.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a propensity-weighted U.S. internet-panel survey (N = 1,001), conservatism and free-market worldview strongly predicted rejection of climate science but had weaker, opposing, or no effects for vaccinations and GM foods, while conspiracist ideation predicted rejection of all three scientific propositions. The authors argue conspiracist ideation is a general cognitive style antithetical to scientific reasoning and relevant to science communication.

Key findings

  • Climate science rejection was strongly predicted by free-market worldview and conservatism; latent correlations with climate acceptance were −.674 for Free Market and −.730 for Conservatism (Table 4).
  • GM food opposition was not predicted by worldviews: the paths were set to zero without significant loss of fit, and correlations with GM acceptance were .091 for Free Market and (.004) for Conservatism, both non-significant. Conspiracist ideation did predict GM rejection (r = −.129).
  • Vaccination attitudes showed opposing worldview effects in the SEM: free-market endorsement predicted rejection, conservatism predicted acceptance, with small non-significant bivariate correlations (Free Market −.038; Conservatism .052) attributed to a suppressor effect. Conspiracist ideation was most strongly linked to vaccination rejection (r = −.521).
  • Conspiracist ideation predicted rejection of all three scientific issues. Convenience conspiracies were endorsed by 200/1,001 for the climate-change hoax, 147/1,001 for the tobacco–lung cancer hoax, and 104/1,001 for the HIV–AIDS conspiracy; the climate-change hoax item explained a third of the variance in climate-science acceptance.

Methods

  • Propensity-weighted internet-panel survey of 1,001 U.S. residents, recruited in early June 2012 via Qualtrics.com/uSamp.com; 1,383 entered, 74 gave no responses, and 308 failed the attention filter or did not complete all items. Median age was 43.0; 501 male and 500 female respondents.
  • The survey comprised 39 items plus age, gender, and an attention-filter question, all rated on a 5-point scale. Constructs included climate science, GM foods, vaccinations, conservatism–liberalism, free-market endorsement, general conspiracist ideation, convenience conspiracies, and other science items.
  • Main analysis used structural equation modeling with single-indicator latent variables in Amos 20.0, after confirming essentially unidimensional measurement models; bootstrapped confidence intervals were used because the conspiracist-ideation indicator departed from normality.

Limitations

  • Stated: although the sample was representative, it may not have included enough participants at the extreme ideological spectrum, so small specific left-wing groups might still reject GM foods or vaccinations; the association between conspiracist ideation and political orientation is not firmly tied to the left or right and awaits further research.
  • Evident: the design is cross-sectional and correlational, so causal direction cannot be established; all measures are self-report; and the SEM uses single-indicator composites, which the authors acknowledge can obscure multidimensionality even though they checked unidimensionality.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Frequency distributions of the single-indicator composite scores for all 6 constructs. Each histogram shows the distribution across subjects of the single-indicator scores. Each variable represents the average responses across the constituent items on the 5-point from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5), with ‘Neutral’ representing the midpoint.
Figure 1 Frequency distributions of the single-indicator composite scores for all 6 constructs. Each histogram shows the distribution across subjects of the single-indicator scores. Each variable represents the average responses across the constituent items on the 5-point from ‘Strongly Disagree’ (1) to ‘Strongly Agree’ (5), with ‘Neutral’ representing the midpoint.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Structural Equation Model summarizing the data (Model 1). All links and correlations shown are standardized and significant; all except the link between Conservatism and Vaccinations; , . Manifest variables and their loadings, and disturbances on endogenous factors, are not shown. Links between latent variables that are not shown are constrained to zero. Loadings and variances of single-indicator manifest variables are not shown and are reported in Table 2.
Figure 2 Structural Equation Model summarizing the data (Model 1). All links and correlations shown are standardized and significant; all except the link between Conservatism and Vaccinations; , . Manifest variables and their loadings, and disturbances on endogenous factors, are not shown. Links between latent variables that are not shown are constrained to zero. Loadings and variances of single-indicator manifest variables are not shown and are reported in Table 2.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

51 Not checked yet · 25 Own result · 22 Own interpretation · 7 Own method

Verify all 75 references — free account

Show all 54 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 26
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 28
51 of 51
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    No equivalent peer-reviewed research in the U.S. on the political correlates of GM-food rejection exists.

    “We are not aware of any equivalent peer-reviewed research in the U.S.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Broad-based empirical data on the role of conspiracist ideation in science denial are lacking.

    “Notwithstanding the growing prominence of conspiracist ideation in science denial, broad-based empirical data on its role are lacking.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Reliable data on the political Left's opposition to GM foods and vaccinations are lacking.

    “Conversely, opposition to genetically-modified (GM) foods and vaccinations is often ascribed to the political Left although reliable data are lacking.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The propensity weighted internet-panel survey is representative of the U.S. population.

    “We conducted a propensity weighted internet-panel survey of the U.S. population”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 71 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  2. Lord FM, Novick MR (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G. E., & Oberauer, K.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Lewandowsky, Stephan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-10-02
Volume
8
Issue
10
Pages
e75637
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094291381
Cited by
693
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 105 · 2021: 92 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 2
FWCI
72.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Science and Science Education
Keywords
conspiracist ideation, conspiracy theories, rejection of science, climate change skepticism, public trust in science, political ideology, conservatism, genetically modified foods, vaccine attitudes, science communication
MeSH terms
Attitude, Culture, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Politics, Rejection, Psychology, Science, Models, Statistical

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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