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 intervention designed to study the influence of worldview, mechanistic knowledge, and quantitative reasoning on students' written arguments about climate change. We used mixed methods to analyze the results of this individually randomized trial with clustering involving 357 participants in grades 9–11 from 5 U.S. sites. Findings show that: (a) exposure to mechanistic knowledge about climate change increased odds of receptivity toward climate change; (b) increasingly conservative worldviews were associated with decreased odds of receptivity; (c) worldview and quantitative reasoning interacted, resulting in an amplified effect of worldview for students with greater quantitative reasoning. Results also suggest that the influence of worldview and mechanistic knowledge on receptivity work independently from one another in our dataset. This study demonstrates the value of teaching mechanistic understandings of climate change, yet also demonstrates the influence of worldview on receptivity to climate change for adolescents, as well as complex interactions between quantitative reasoning (something school science aims to develop) and worldview. It shows that moving the U.S. public toward the scientific consensus is complex and involves confronting ideologically motivated reasoning within science education.
Aligning Multidimensional Worldviews and Discovering Ideological Differences
The Internet is home to thousands of communities, each with their own unique worldview and associated ideological differences. With new communities constantly emerging and serving as ideological birthplaces, battlegrounds, and bunkers, it is critical to develop a framework for understanding worldviews and ideological distinction. Most existing work, however, takes a predetermined view based on political polarization: the “right vs. left” dichotomy of U.S. politics. In reality, both political polarization – and worldviews more broadly – transcend one-dimensional difference, and deserve a more complete analysis. Extending the ability of word embedding models to capture the semantic and cultural characteristics of their training corpora, we propose a novel method for discovering the multifaceted ideological and worldview characteristics of communities. Using over 1B comments collected from the largest communities on Reddit.com representing ~40% of Reddit activity, we demonstrate the efficacy of this approach to uncover complex ideological differences across multiple axes of polarization.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1800956
- PAR ID:
- 10381168
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 4832 to 4845
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
Abstract Understanding the individual-level characteristics associated with conspiracy theory beliefs is vital to addressing and combatting those beliefs. While researchers have identified numerous psychological and political characteristics associated with conspiracy theory beliefs, the generalizability of those findings is uncertain because they are typically drawn from studies of only a few conspiracy theories. Here, we employ a national survey of 2021 U.S. adults that asks about 15 psychological and political characteristics as well as beliefs in 39 different conspiracy theories. Across 585 relationships examined within both bivariate (correlations) and multivariate (regression) frameworks, we find that psychological traits (e.g., dark triad) and non-partisan/ideological political worldviews (e.g., populism, support for violence) are most strongly related to individual conspiracy theory beliefs, regardless of the belief under consideration, while other previously identified correlates (e.g., partisanship, ideological extremity) are inconsistently related. We also find that the correlates of specific conspiracy theory beliefs mirror those of conspiracy thinking (the predisposition), indicating that this predisposition operates like an ‘average’ of individual conspiracy theory beliefs. Overall, our findings detail the psychological and political traits of the individuals most drawn to conspiracy theories and have important implications for scholars and practitioners seeking to prevent or reduce the impact of conspiracy theories.more » « less
-
Analyzing ideology and polarization is of critical importance in advancing our grasp of modern politics. Recent research has made great strides towards understanding the ideological bias (i.e., stance) of news media along the left-right spectrum. In this work, we instead take a novel and more nuanced approach for the study of ideology based on its left or right positions on the issue being discussed. Aligned with the theoretical accounts in political science, we treat ideology as a multi-dimensional construct, and introduce the first diachronic dataset of news articles whose ideological positions are annotated by trained political scientists and linguists at the paragraph level. We showcase that, by controlling for the author{'}s stance, our method allows for the quantitative and temporal measurement and analysis of polarization as a multidimensional ideological distance. We further present baseline models for ideology prediction, outlining a challenging task distinct from stance detection.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)We mathematically compare four competing definitions of group-level nondiscrimination: demographic parity, equalized odds, predictive parity, and calibration. Using the theoretical framework of Friedler et al., we study the properties of each definition under various worldviews, which are assumptions about how, if at all, the observed data is biased. We argue that different worldviews call for different definitions of fairness, and we specify the worldviews that, when combined with the desire to avoid a criterion for discrimination that we call disparity amplification, motivate demographic parity and equalized odds. We also argue that predictive parity and calibration are insufficient for avoiding disparity amplification because predictive parity allows an arbitrarily large inter-group disparity and calibration is not robust to post-processing. Finally, we define a worldview that is more realistic than the previously considered ones, and we introduce a new notion of fairness that corresponds to this worldview.more » « less
-
Across the globe, governments restricted social life to slow the spread of COVID-19. Several conservative Protestant sects resisted these policies in the United States. We do not yet know if theology shaped the resistance or if it was more a product of a polarized national political context. We argue that the country context likely shapes how conservative Protestants’ moral worldview affects their perceptions of the pandemic and government restrictions. Countries implementing more regulations, those with limited access to healthcare, food, and other essential services, and those with past histories of epidemics may all shape residents’ perceptions. Drawing on the case of American Amish and Mennonite missionaries stationed abroad, we content-analyzed accounts of the pandemic from an international Amish and Mennonite correspondence newspaper. We found that the missionaries’ perceptions of the pandemic and governmental restrictions differ from those of their U.S. counterparts, which suggests that context likely shapes how religious moral worldviews express themselves concerning public health interventions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.396
