Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science as a Vaccine

The Relation between Scientific Literacy and Unwarranted Beliefs

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we explore the relation between scientific literacy (knowledge about scientific theories, trust in science, and critical thinking) and unwarranted beliefs (pseudoscience, the paranormal and conspiracy theories). The results show heterogeneous interactions between six constructs: (1) conspiracy theories poorly interact with scientific literacy; (2) there are major differences between attitudinal and practical dimensions of critical thinking; (3) paranormal and pseudoscientific beliefs show similar associations (they are predicted by scientific knowledge and trust in science); and (4), only scientific knowledge interacts with other predictor of unwarranted beliefs, such as ontological confusions. These results reveal a limited impact: science educators must take into account the complex interactions between the dimensions of scientific literacy and different types of unwarranted beliefs to improve pedagogical strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarnio, K., & Lindeman, M. (2005). Paranormal beliefs, education, and thinking styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(7), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaronovitch, D. (2009). Voodoo histories: the role of the conspiracy theory in shaping modern history. London: Jonathan Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensley, A., Lilienfeld, S., & Powell, L. (2014). A new measure of psychological misconceptions: relations with academic background, critical thinking, and acceptance of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims. Learning and Individual Differences, 39(7), 1227–1236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broad, C. (1953). The relevance of psychical research to philosophy. In J. Ludwig (Ed.), Philosophy and Parapsychology. Buffalo: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotherton, R., French, C., & Pickering, A. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: the generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N., Furtak, E., Timms, M., Nagashima, S., & Wilson, M. (2010). The evidence-based reasoning framework: assessing scientific reasoning. Educational Assessment, 15, 123–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M., Thompson, P., Rockloff, M., & Pennycook, G. (2015). Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the ‘vaccination confidence gap’. PLoS One, 10(9), e0132562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (1997). Towards an understanding of scientific literacy. In W. Gräber, C. Bolte (Eds.) Scientific literacy. An international symposium. Kiel: Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften (IPN).

  • Campitelli, G., & Gerrans, P. (2014). Does the cognitive reflection test measure cognitive reflection? A mathematical modeling approach. Memory & Cognition, 42, 434–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman University (2017). Survey of American Fears Wave 4. Retrieved from https://www.chapman.edu/wilkinson/research-centers/babbie-center/survey-american-fears.aspx. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.

  • Darwin, H., Neave, N., & Holmes, J. (2011). Belief in conspiracy theories: the role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation, and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1289–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, J., & Schweitzer, M. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 736–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, K., & Hall, R. (2018). Effect of critical thinking education on epistemically unwarranted beliefs in college students. Research in Higher Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9513-3.

  • Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytic-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farha, B., & Steward, G. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: an analysis of college students. The Skeptical Inquirer, 30(1), 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasce, A. (2017). Los parásitos de la ciencia. Una caracterización psicocognitiva del engaño pseudocientífico [The Parasites of Science. A Psycho-cognitive Characterization of a Pseudo-scientific Hoax]. Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, 32(3), 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasce, A. (2018a). What do we mean when we speak of pseudoscience? The development of a demarcation criterion based on the analysis of twenty one previous attempts. Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin, 6(7), 459–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasce, A., & Picó, A. (2018a). Conceptual foundations and validation of the pseudoscientific belief scale. Applied Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3501.

  • FECYT (2017). VIII Encuenta de percepción social de la ciencia. Retrieved from: http://www.idi.mineco.gob.es/stfls/MICINN/Cultura/FICHEROS/2017/Dossier_PSC_2017.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.

  • Franz, T., & Green, K. (2013). The impact of an interdisciplinary learning community course on pseudoscientific reasoning in first-year science students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(5), 90–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere. Study of public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. The American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Cognitive Science, 1, 107–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). What is scientific and technological culture and how is it measured? A multidimensional model. Public Understanding of Science, 9(1), 43–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goode, E. (2002). Education, scientific knowledge, and belief in the paranormal. The Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gräber, W., Erdmann, T., & Schlieker, V. (2001). ParCIS: Aiming for Scientific Literacy through Self-Regulated Learning with the Internet. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED466362.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.

  • Grimmer, M., & White, K. (1992). Nonconventional beliefs among Australian science and nonscience students. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 126(5), 521–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 63, 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(3), 275–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Impey, C. (2013). Science literacy of undergraduates on the united stated. Organizations, People and Strategies in Astronomy, 2(2), 353–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, H., Dagnall, N., & Drinkwater, K. (2016). Dispositional Scepticism, attitudes to science, and belief in the paranormal. Australian Journal of Parapsychology, 16(2), 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 591–607.

  • Johnson, M., & Pigliucci, M. (2004). Is knowledge of science associated with higher skepticism of pseudoscientific claims? The American Biology Teacher, 66(8), 536–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S., Park, H., Gross, C., & Yu, J. (2018). Use of alternative medicine for Cancer and its impact on survival. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(1), 121–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasikiewicz, N. (2016). Perceived stress, thinking style, and paranormal belief. Imagination, Cognition and Personality: Consciousness in Theory, Research, and Clinical Practice, 35(3), 306–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016). Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(4), 217–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, K., & Oberauer, K. (2013a). The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS One, 8(10), e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Gignac, G. (2013b). NASA faked the moon landing – Therefore (climate) science is a hoax: An anatomy of the motivated rejection of science. Psychological Science, 24(5), 622–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S., Loh, J., & Morier, D. (2004). The teaching of courses in the science and pseudoscience of psychology: Useful resources. Teaching of Psychology, 28(3), 182–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M., & Aarnio, K. (2006). Paranormal beliefs: Their dimensionality and correlates. European Journal of Personality, 20, 585–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M., & Svedholm-Häkkinen, A. (2016). Does poor understanding of physical world predict religious and paranormal beliefs? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 736–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M., Svedholm, A., Takada, M., Lönnqvist, J., & Verkasalo, M. (2011). Core knowledge confusions Among University students. Science & Education, 20, 439–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindeman, M., Svedholm-Häkkinen, A., & Lipsanen, J. (2015). Ontological confusions but not mentalizing abilities predict religious belief, paranormal belief, and belief in supernatural purpose. Cognition, 134, 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobato, E., Mendoza, J., Sins, V., & Chin, M. (2014). Examining the relationship between conspiracy theories, paranormal beliefs, and pseudoscience acceptance among a university population. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 617–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losh, S., & Nzekwe, B. (2011). The influence of education major: How diverse preservice teachers view pseudoscience topics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 579–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundström, M., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Students’ ideas regarding science and Pseudo- science in relation to the human body and health. Nordina, 5(1), 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majima, Y. (2015). Belief in pseudoscience, cognitive style a nd science literacy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 552–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (1998). The principle elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, A., & McGill, A. (2017). Explicitly teaching critical thinking skills in a history course. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 93–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeish, J. (1984). Children’s superstitions: British and Canadian. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(4), 425–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1987). The scientifically illiterate. American Demographics, 9, 27–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morier, D., & Keeports, D. (1994). Normal science and the paranormal: The effect of a scientific method course on students' beliefs. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 443–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L., & Hardy, K. (2015). Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(9), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L., Jorcyk, C., Yang, D., Smith, M., Matson, S., Cornell, K., & Husting, V. (2014). I just don't trust them: The development and validation of an assessment instrument to measure trust in science and scientists. School Science and Mathematics, 114(2), 76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSB (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/nsb20161.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.

  • Oliver, E., & Wood, T. (2014). Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 952–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Omer, S., Salmon, D., Orenstein, W., deHart, M., & Halsey, N. (2009). Vaccine refusal, mandatory immunization, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(19), 1981–1988. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OUP (2017). Paranormal. Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paranormal. Accessed 18 Oct 2017.

  • Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J., Seli, P., Koehler, D., & Fugelsang, J. (2012). Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief. Cognition, 123, 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M. (2007). The evolution-creation wars: Why teaching more science just is not enough. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2), 285–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagan, C. (1995). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, C., & Routledge, L. (1971). Supernatural beliefs among graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania. Nature, 232, 278–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shein, P., Li, Y., & Huang, T. (2014). Relationship between scientific knowledge and fortune- telling. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 780–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shortland, M. (1988). Advocating science: Literacy and public understanding. Impact of Science on Society, 38(4), 305–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shtulman, A., & McCallum, K. (2014). Cognitive reflection predicts science understanding. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the cognitive science society. Austin: Cognitive Science Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosu, E. (2013). The development and psychometric validation of a critical thinking disposition scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ståhla, T., & van Prooijen, J. (2018). Epistemic rationality: Skepticism toward unfounded beliefs requires sufficient cognitive ability and motivation to be rational. Personality and Individual Differences, 122(1), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surmeli, H., & Saka, M. (2011). Paranormal beliefs of preservice teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1385–1390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swami, V., Coles, R., Stieger, S., Pietschnig, J., Furnham, A., Rehim, S., & Voracek, M. (2011). Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories. British Journal of Psychology, 120, 443–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobacyk, J. (2004). A revised paranormal belief scale. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 23(1), 94–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobacyk, J., & Milford, G. (1983). Belief in paranormal phenomena: Assessment instrument development and implications for personality functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 648–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. (2017). Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31, 50–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J., Krouwel, A., & Pollet, T. (2015). Polical extremism predicts beliefs conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(5), 570–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, R., & Tenreiro-Vieira, C. (2016). Fostering scientific literacy and critical thinking in elementary science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilela, L., & Álvarez, C. (2004). Differences in paranormal beliefs across fields of study from a Spanish adaptation of Tobacyk’s RPBS. The Journal of Parapsychology, 68(2), 405–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, R., Hoekstra, S., & Vogl, R. (2002). Science education is no guarantee of skepticism. Skeptic, 9(3), 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. (2018). Reducing pseudoscientific and paranormal beliefs in university students through a course in science and critical thinking. Science & Education, 1–2, 183–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, L. (1992). F the unnatural nature of science. London: Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, M., Douglas, K., & Sutton, R. (2012). Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 767–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Valencia, Facultad de Filosofía. Avd. Blasco Ibañez, 30, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    Angelo Fasce

  2. Department of Psychobiology, University of Valencia, Facultad de Psicologia. Avd. Blasco Ibáñez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain

    Alfonso Picó

Authors
  1. Angelo Fasce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alfonso Picó
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angelo Fasce.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fasce, A., Picó, A. Science as a Vaccine. Sci & Educ 28, 109–125 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-00022-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation