Voor de beste ervaring schakelt u JavaScript in en gebruikt u een moderne browser!
Je gebruikt een niet-ondersteunde browser. Deze site kan er anders uitzien dan je verwacht.
What causes distrust in science? According to psychologist Bojana Većkalov there isn’t a single explanation—it depends on the specific scientific domain. Distrust can stem from political preferences, as seen in the case of climate change, or from personal beliefs and worldviews, as with new (bio)technological advancements. Interestingly, there is one method that could increase trust in all these domains, even among sceptics: making science personal and urgent.

Trust in science: a complex picture

While general trust in science remains high—around 90%—Većkalov questions the value of such broad figures when it comes to consequential decisions people make. ‘What matters more is how people feel about specific topics, like vaccinations,’ she says. On these issues, a different picture emerges. ‘If you dig deeper, you'll find that 35% of people say they only trust science that aligns with their personal beliefs. On certain topics, this can even rise above 40%.’

From healthy scepticism to rejecting science

Većkalov emphasises that being critical isn’t necessarily a problem. However, it becomes concerning when scepticism turns into outright rejection of science. ‘This can lead to people refusing vaccinations or rejecting technological innovations that are crucial for global issues like food security,’ she warns. She adds that people can also influence the behaviour of others when they share their sceptical thoughts.

Research in the Netherlands

To understand why people distrust science and what can be done about it, Većkalov and colleagues conducted various surveys and experiments. They examined public attitudes toward science across a number of fields, from climate change—where there’s a strong scientific consensus—to newer areas at the intersection of science and technology, such as artificial intelligence, human gene editing (making specific changes to DNA) and nanotechnology. The research revealed that factors explaining distrust vary across scientific areas.

Spirituality and a discomfort with manipulating nature

For scientific domains that include producing new (bio)technological advancements, a consistent link between distrust and spirituality, and a discomfort with manipulating nature, stood out. ‘Spirituality, often referred to as New Age beliefs or post-Christian spirituality, is characterised by a reliance on personal experience: if it feels true, it is true. This sharply contrasts with the scientific approach, which relies on evidence and research,’ Većkalov explains.

The aversion to tampering with nature was the strongest predictor across the three domains of nanotechnology, AI, and human gene editing. According to Većkalov, this insight could help enhance communication about technological innovations, addressing concerns rooted in a preference for naturalness. ‘For instance, these technologies can be framed as working in harmony with nature, rather than opposing it.’

The role of political preferences

In the scientific domain of climate change, political preferences were found to be the main explaining factor for scepticism. ‘In three studies with 654 participants from the Netherlands and the UK, we found that conservatives are less likely than liberals to think about the long-term effects of their actions and see climate change as a distant future problem,’ Većkalov explains. ‘This view of time, along with less focus on future consequences, helps explain why conservatives are often more sceptical about climate change.’

Strengthening trust in science

Većkalov also examined the effects of different communication styles and discovered that messages making science feel personal and urgent can influence even sceptics. ‘This relates to the concept of psychological distance: the more science feels distant—unconnected to one’s life or immediate surroundings—the less trust people tend to have. Framing science as something done by local scientists, already in practice, with scientists confident in its success and willing to discuss and engage with the public lowered scepticism in all areas.’

This finding highlights the importance of effective science communication: showing how science can have a beneficial impact on everyday life and ensuring scientific knowledge is accessible to everyone.

Thesis details

Bojana Većkalov: Towards a better understanding of science scepticism: psychological contributors and potential solutions. Supervisor: Prof. F. van Harreveld, co-supervisor: Dr B.T. Rutjens.

Time and location of defence

Thursday, 23 January, 13.00-14.30, Agnietenkapel, Amsterdam