Despite the recent influx of studies suggesting the negative societal impact of inequality, many remain skeptical of these scientific findings. Across four studies, we explore how political affiliation and social dominance orientation (SDO) interactively shape attitudes toward the emerging science on the repercussions of social inequality. Acceptance of this science was consistently polarized based on partisanship, with Republicans exhibiting less acceptance of the findings than Democrats. Consistent with a solution aversion perspective, correlational studies showed that this gap in acceptance was related to Republicans' distaste for policies they presumed would be introduced to solve this problem, rather than a direct aversion to equality itself (Studies 1a and 1b). Supporting this interpretation, experimental studies that manipulated the content of likely policy solutions to inequality to be less inconsistent with Republican beliefs resulted in abated Republican skepticism of these same findings (Study 2 and Study 3). However, we also observed an important boundary condition to the solution aversion effect and evidence for another driver of this case of denial: social dominance orientation (Study 2 and Study 3). The value of testing and considering multiple individual differences when explaining motivated scientific (dis)belief is discussed.

尽管最近有大量研究表明不平等会对社会产生负面影响，但许多人仍然对这些科学发现持怀疑态度。在四项研究中，我们探讨了政治联系和社会主导地位（SDO）如何相互作用地塑造对社会不平等影响的新兴科学的态度。基于党派关系，对科学的接受一直处于两极分化状态，共和党人对这一发现的接受程度低于民主党。与解决方案规避的观点一致，相关研究表明，接受的差距与共和党人对他们认为将被引入解决该问题的政策的厌恶有关，而不是直接反对平等本身（研究1a和1b）。支持这种解释，通过对不平等现象可能采取的政策解决方案的内容进行操纵以减少与共和党信仰的矛盾的实验研究，共和党人对这些相同发现的怀疑有所减弱（研究2和研究3）。但是，我们还观察到了解决厌恶效应的重要边界条件，并为这种否定情况的另一个驱动因素提供了证据：社会优势取向（研究2和研究3）。讨论了在解释有动机的科学（信仰）信念时测试和考虑多个个体差异的价值。我们还观察到了解决方案规避效果的重要边界条件，并为这种否定情况的另一个驱动因素提供了证据：社会优势取向（研究2和研究3）。讨论了在解释有动机的科学（信仰）信念时测试和考虑多个个体差异的价值。我们还观察到了解决方案规避效果的重要边界条件，并为这种否定情况的另一个驱动因素提供了证据：社会优势取向（研究2和研究3）。讨论了在解释有动机的科学（信仰）信念时测试和考虑多个个体差异的价值。