2020
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21648
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Complex influences of mechanistic knowledge, worldview, and quantitative reasoning on climate change discourse: Evidence for ideologically motivated reasoning among youth

Abstract: Anthropogenic climate change remains divisive in the United States, where skepticism of the scientific consensus is associated with conservative worldviews, resulting in political polarization. This study considers three hypotheses regarding U.S. polarization over climate change that have emerged from social psychology research and applies them to science education by showing how these hypotheses could relate to adolescents' science learning. We then test each hypothesis within an experimental educational inte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
18
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
(111 reference statements)
1
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All models in Table 3 include education × party interaction terms. Education × party effects, or similar interactions involving other knowledge and political indicators, have been found in previous studies to affect responses on science trust (Hamilton, Hartter, and Saito 2015;) and many other science-related topics (Drummond and Fischhoff 2017;Hamilton 2008Hamilton , 2011Hamilton, Cutler, and Schaefer 2012;Hamilton, Hartter, Lemcke-Stampone, et al 2015;Kahan et al 2011;McCright and Dunlap 2011;Shao et al 2014;Tranter 2019;Zummo, Donovan, and Busch 2021). Their usual form is that trust in scientists rises with education among Democrats and Independents (or liberals and moderates), but stays level or declines with education among the most conservative.…”
Section: Predictors Of Behavior and Perceptionssupporting
confidence: 58%
“…All models in Table 3 include education × party interaction terms. Education × party effects, or similar interactions involving other knowledge and political indicators, have been found in previous studies to affect responses on science trust (Hamilton, Hartter, and Saito 2015;) and many other science-related topics (Drummond and Fischhoff 2017;Hamilton 2008Hamilton , 2011Hamilton, Cutler, and Schaefer 2012;Hamilton, Hartter, Lemcke-Stampone, et al 2015;Kahan et al 2011;McCright and Dunlap 2011;Shao et al 2014;Tranter 2019;Zummo, Donovan, and Busch 2021). Their usual form is that trust in scientists rises with education among Democrats and Independents (or liberals and moderates), but stays level or declines with education among the most conservative.…”
Section: Predictors Of Behavior and Perceptionssupporting
confidence: 58%
“…Rasch modeling has broad application within the field of science education as a rigorous approach for development, revision, or validation of assessment tools in the geosciences (Libarkin & Anderson, 2006), nature of science (Harrison et al, 2015;Neumann et al, 2011), epistemic beliefs (Fulmer, 2014), argumentation (Osborne et al, 2016), science reasoning (Fulmer et al, 2015), self-efficacy (Boone et al, 2011), and interdisciplinary science (Yang et al, 2018), among others. Within the context of climate science education, Rasch analysis has been used to assess the factors that impact students' perceived risks of climate change (Aksit et al, 2018;Boon, 2016;Libarkin et al, 2018), understanding of climate change and socioscientific reasoning (Eggert et al, 2017), the conceptions of climate change held by middle school students , and the influence of quantitative reasoning on learners' discourse related to climate change (Zummo et al, 2021).…”
Section: Climate Literacy and Epistemic Cognition Survey Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Is one's climate literacy affected by their epistemic cognition? We suspect this to be the case, particularly with younger learners whose epistemic cognition may still be under development and who may be unduly influenced by arguments that refute the findings of the climate science community (Zummo et al, 2021). We believe that helping students construct an understanding of the science content behind climate change includes aiding them in deciding what to believe, how to differentiate between empirical evidence and misinformation, and why certain claims are more valid than others.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations