How do ‘double skeptics’ affect government policy on climate and vaccination?

Governments and other policymakers around the world wrestle with how to deal with people who are skeptical of official positions and guidelines, such as climate skeptics and antivaxxers.

Earlier research has linked such skepticism to distrust of scientists among members of the public, while other studies have shown that it is difficult to erode skeptical attitudes that are psychologically motivated by factors such as bias against elite institutions or a conservative world view.

New research from the University of Cambridge, reported in the journal PLOS ONE, suggests a more tailored approach could help dispel some of this skepticism, which could have implications for the way governments deal with skepticism among their constituents.

“The research shows that there are other approaches than addressing these issues in a one-size-fits-all manner,” said study co-author Dr. Zeynep Clulow from Cambridge Judge Business School. “There are different types of skeptics, so this requires different strategies aimed at dispelling skepticism.”

“These findings can help policymakers develop more targeted strategies and focus more attention on groups that are persuadable, rather than being resigned to considering every skeptic to be some consistent conspiracist on every issue,” said co-author Professor David Reiner, also from Cambridge Judge Business School.

The research analyzed the drivers of skepticism toward climate change and COVID-19 vaccination, based on a survey taken in early 2021 by polling firm Ipsos Mori, when most countries had been through the first wave of the pandemic and begun rolling out vaccination programs. Nationally-representative samples of 2,000 people were polled in each of eight countries: Australia, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Africa, the UK and the US.

The study found that while the vast majority of people support COVID-19 vaccinations and recognize the threats posed by climate change, there were small groups who are skeptical of either climate change or COVID-19 vaccination, and an even smaller group who were skeptical of both.

For this smaller group of “double skeptics,” their attitudes were motivated by an underlying skeptical mindset, which was distrustful of institutions in general, including scientists and mainstream media.

Single-issue skeptics, in contrast, were primarily distrustful of scientists. The research found that people who completely distrust scientists were approximately four times more likely to be antivaxxers and five times more likely to be climate skeptics than double skeptics.

According to the researchers, this distinction suggests that efforts to overcome isolated predictors of skepticism—such as building trust in scientists, economic support and information campaigns—are more likely to boost support for policies designed to create societal responses to global challenges.

The same is not true for double skeptics: such strategies are likely to be ineffective or even counter-productive for people whose skepticism is associated with a more generalized skeptical worldview.

Double skeptics tend to possess many of the typical skeptic characteristics, such as high distrust in social institutions and right-wing political orientation, which are collectively suggestive of an underlying skeptic mindset rather than a specific distrust of scientists.

Reasons why distrust in scientists might drive skepticism on climate change and COVID-19 vaccination include the complex nature of both issues that make it difficult for non-scientists to fully understand, and the financial and behavioral costs related to mitigation of these issues.

The surveys asked respondents to rate their trust in university scientists as part of a broader question that also probed trust in institutions and actors ranging from corporations to environmental NGOs to television news. They were also asked to rate trust in certain specific sources, including oil and gas companies, Greenpeace, Greta Thunberg, and social media.

While many respondents showed some degree of skepticism (35% did not consider climate change a major threat to their country, and 17% were unlikely to take a COVID-19 vaccine if offered one), only a very small minority (1.4%) chose the most skeptical response towards both issues.

Even in the United States, only 4% of respondents were skeptical towards both issues and that group was less than 2% of the sample in the other seven countries. Similarly, less than 5% of respondents in six countries completely dismissed the threat of climate change (Australia at 9% and the US at 14% were higher).

The research also found that skepticism is inversely related with education, science knowledge, and perceived responsibility for combating climate change. Skepticism was higher among men, people who distrust television, and those with right-wing political views.

The researchers also found that people who prioritized the economy over the mitigation of climate change or COVID-19, or both, were significantly more likely to distrust scientists.

The researchers note two important limitations of their study sample: respondents in emerging economies were recruited from urban centers, so the views of rural citizens may not be accurately reflected; and Chinese respondents were not asked about their political views.

The other caveat is that the survey was taken when almost no one had received the COVID-19 vaccine and when many countries were still under some form of lockdown.

“While acknowledging that this was a particularly unusual time, we expect the finding that double skeptics comprise a small fraction of total pool of skeptics to be robust and we would expect to see this finding extended to other topics,” said Clulow.

“Painting all skeptics as irredeemable conspiracists is both counterproductive and incorrect,” said Reiner.

“Most climate skeptics are not very concerned about taking a vaccine and vice versa. Most skeptics are single-issue skeptics and will need to be engaged on the specifics of the issue, which will, no doubt, be challenging, but they do not exhibit the more fundamental, all-encompassing skepticism we find among double-skeptics that extends to all societal institutions and media outlets.”