Governments are challenged by skepticism about climate change and vaccination among the public. Research from the University of Cambridge published in PLOS ONE identifies distinct profiles of skeptics, especially ‘double skeptics’ who question both. Successful engagement requires targeted strategies rather than broad approaches, recognizing the roots of skepticism linked to distrust in institutions and political biases. The study highlights the need for differentiated responses to foster trust and understanding in public health efforts.
Governments globally face the challenge of addressing the skepticism exhibited by segments of the population regarding official guidelines on critical issues such as climate change and vaccination. Recent research from the University of Cambridge, published in the journal PLOS ONE, sheds light on this issue, distinguishing between varying forms of skepticism, particularly focusing on ‘double skeptics’—those who are skeptical of both climate change and vaccination. This study indicates that these double skeptics are driven by broader distrust in institutions, suggesting that generic approaches to countering skepticism may be ineffective. Instead, developing targeted strategies that recognize the complexities of public sentiment could enhance governmental responses to these pressing global challenges. The research, which utilized a survey conducted by polling firm Ipsos Mori in early 2021, captured attitudes across several countries, revealing that while a significant majority support vaccinations and recognize climate threats, a small percentage remain skeptical. Among these, double skeptics demonstrate a distinct mindset characterized by distrust toward institutions, underlined by their political orientation and media perceptions. For policymakers, this differentiation underscores the necessity of tailored communication efforts rather than a blanket approach, particularly in engaging individuals who might be more receptive to evidence-based reasoning. The study found that while 1.4% of respondents were classified as double skeptics, those who held a singular skepticism were comparatively less challenged in their attitudes. Notably, individuals disinclined to trust scientists faced higher odds of being both antivaxxers and climate skeptics. The distinction in motivations behind skepticism indicates that strategies focused on increasing trust in science or enhancing economic incentives may yield differing results depending on the complexity and psychological underpinnings of individuals’ beliefs. Overall, this indicates that an effective policy approach necessitates understanding the unique drivers of skepticism rather than resorting to generalized responses.
This article discusses how different types of skepticism, particularly ‘double skeptics’—individuals skeptical of both climate change and vaccination—impact governmental policies and public health initiatives. The University of Cambridge’s research highlights the characteristics of these skeptics, their distrust of institutions, and their implications for policymaking. Understanding the underlying motivations for skepticism is crucial in developing effective strategies to address public concerns regarding pressing global issues like climate change and public health naturally stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
In conclusion, the research underscores the importance of recognizing the varied nature of public skepticism towards climate change and vaccinations. While a small group of double skeptics exhibits a pervasive distrust in societal institutions, most skeptics may hold specific reservations that can be addressed through targeted engagement strategies. Effective communication that resonates with this audience appears essential, as generic strategies fail to penetrate deeply-rooted skepticism. This recognition can ultimately lead to more successful policymaking and public health initiatives.
Original Source: phys.org
