Do you believe what you have been told? Morality and scientific literacy as predictors of pseudoscience susceptibility

Abstract

Summary The aim of the current study was to examine the antecedents of susceptibility to pseudoscientific information. Participants were asked to assess their perceived probability of and familiarity with statements containing popular science misconceptions and pseudoscientific claims, which were fabricated for the study. Measures of scientific literacy, moral inclinations, need for closure, and a set of additional variables were collected. Analysis of the results showed that susceptibility to known pseudoscientific theories predicted falling for novel unwarranted claims. Scientific literacy strongly predicted lower pseudoscience susceptibility of all types. Finally, participants' moral inclinations were found to be a strong predictor of different types of pseudoscientific statements.

Disproven but still believed: The role of information and individual differences in the prediction of topic‐related pseudoscience acceptance

“…Furthermore, various predictors (unconventional thinking, DI, and AB) were differentially associated with the acceptance of different pseudoscience topics. This is in line with previous findings (Piejka & Okruszek, 2020; Rutjens et al, 2018) and offers useful and particularized information to combat the different branches of pseudoscience. As already suggested by other authors, campaigns and interventions aimed at combating pseudoscience should be tailored to the particularities of each branch, according to its respective predictors (Rutjens et al, 2018).…”

“…As some authors have suggested, these discrepancies could be due to differences in the popularity of different types of pseudoscience across countries (Dekker et al, 2012). It could potentially explain the differences between the results obtained in our research (Spanish sample) and those obtained by Piejka and Okruszek (2020) (Polish sample). However, the latter study does not report the same comparison regarding the familiarity of the different pseudoscience topics; therefore future research should further investigate this possibility.…”

“…Presenting these three topics together allowed us to explore possible differences between them in terms of (1) their acceptance, (2) their spread, (3) their likelihood of having been met with DI, and (4) the variables to which they are related. This has been suggested to be crucial for adequately adjusting interventions aimed at reducing beliefs in pseudoscience (Ferrero et al, 2016; Piejka & Okruszek, 2020; Rutjens et al, 2018).…”

“…(3) their likelihood of having been met with DI, and (4) the variables to which they are related. This has been suggested to be crucial for adequately adjusting interventions aimed at reducing beliefs in pseudoscience (Ferrero et al, 2016;Piejka & Okruszek, 2020;Rutjens et al, 2018).…”

“…The inclusion of age and gender was based on common practice for empirical studies in young research fields. As in previous studies, no relationship was found between these variables and beliefs in pseudoscience (Fasce & Pic o, 2019a;Piejka & Okruszek, 2020). The rationale behind the inclusion of AB was based on the fact that there is debate about the effect of higher education (university) on the acceptance of pseudoscientific practices (Bensley et al, 2014;Hughes et al, 2013;McKeachie, 1960;Taylor & Kowalski, 2004;Vaughan, 1977).…”