LAUSR

ABSTRACT Political polarization in the United States has spilled over into issues that were not previously aligned on partisan sides, especially with regard to scientific expertise. People take cues from elites and as a result, alter their preferences based on those elite cues. In particular, self-identified Republicans and conservatives are more suspicious of scientists and academics, and more likely to dismiss or disbelieve scientific findings. We apply these findings in the context of attitudes about concussion-related injuries in sports. We theorize that groups predisposed against academics and scientists will be less likely to believe in connections between head injuries and organized sports. Using a nationally representative survey conducted in 2016, we find strong support for our theory. There is widespread of acceptance that concussions and head injuries are a problem in sports with 65% saying they are a major problem and 29% saying minor problem. Attitudes about the dangers of traumatic brain injuries and acceptance of new scientific findings are divided by party identification, especially among those with the highest levels of political knowledge. Further, attitudes about new science on concussions are related to attitudes about climate change. These findings have broad implications for how scientific issues are politicized in the United States in the contemporary era.