LAUSR

Understanding how the public perceives uncertainty in scientific research is fundamental for effective communication about research and its inevitable uncertainty. Previous work found that scientific evidence differentially influenced beliefs from individuals with different political ideologies. Evidence that threatens an individual’s political ideology is perceived as more uncertain than nonthreatening evidence. The authors present 3 studies examining perceptions of scientific uncertainty more broadly by including sciences that are not politically polarizing. Study 1 develops scales measuring perceptions of scientific uncertainty. It finds (a) 3 perceptual dimensions of scientific uncertainty, with the primary dimension representing a perception of precision; (b) the precision dimension of uncertainty is strongly associated with the perceived value of a research field; and (c) differences in perceived uncertainty across political affiliations. Study 2 manipulated these dimensions, finding that Republicans were more sensitive than Democrats to descriptions of uncertainty associated with a research field (e.g., psychology). Study 3 found that these views of a research field did not extend to the evaluation of individual results produced by the field. Together, these studies show that perceptions of scientific uncertainty associated with entire research fields are valid predictors of abstract perceptions of scientific quality, benefit, and allocation of funding. Yet, they do not inform judgments about individual results. Therefore, polarization in the acceptance of specific results is not likely due to individual differences in perceived scientific uncertainty. Further, the direction of influence potentially could be reversed, such that perceived quality of scientific results could be used to influence perceptions about scientific research fields.