Public divide on climate change: Right wing nature or human nature?

Having time to think can give people the chance to justify the wrong answer to themselves.

Flickr user Todd Martin (martin)

Arguments over publicly controversial scientific issues like climate change commonly include a lot of accusations of ignorance, naïveté, and ulterior motives. Take a step back from “why is this person such a lughead?” though, and a much better question arises: why are opinions so strongly tied to political affiliation? Why should liberals and conservatives come to such different views of what the scientific evidence does or does not show? If your brain just started compiling a laundry list of reasons why those on the other side of the issue from you obviously become mislead, stop for a moment and consider your side as well.

Researchers have come up with several possible explanations for these systematic divergences in public opinion. A new study in the journal Judgment and Decision Making describes a head-to-head test of the most prevalent ones, done in an attempt to find out which one best describes what’s really going on.

There are three hypotheses in play here. The first refers to what’s known as “dual process reasoning,” a model of human thinking in which we can engage with ideas on two levels. The first is quick and dirty, leaning on intuition and emotion. The second is slow and deliberative, resulting in more objective and rational decisions. If people are forming their opinions on the quick and dirty level without careful, logical consideration, then public controversies may be inevitable.