A substantial literature shows that public polarization over climate change in the U.S. is most pronounced among the science literate. A dominant explanation for this phenomenon is that science literacy amplifies motivated reasoning, the tendency to interpret evidence such that it confirms prior beliefs. The present study tests the biasing account of science literacy in a study among the U.S. population that investigated both interpretation of climate change evidence and repeated belief-updating. Results replicated the typical correlational pattern of political polarization as a function of science literacy. However, results delivered little support for the core causal claim of the biasing account—that science literacy drives motivated reasoning. Hence, these results speak against a mechanism whereby science literacy driving motivated reasoning could explain polarized climate change beliefs among the science literate. This study adds to our growing understanding of the role of science literacy for public beliefs about contested science.

中文翻译：

---

两极分化的气候变化信念：在一项美国国家研究中，没有证据表明科学素养推动了动机推理。

大量文献表明，美国公众对气候变化的两极分化在科学素养中最为明显。对这种现象的一个主要解释是，科学素养放大了有动机的推理，即解释证据以证实先前信念的倾向。本研究在一项针对美国人口的研究中测试了对科学素养的偏见解释，该研究调查了气候变化证据的解释和反复的信念更新。结果复制了政治两极分化的典型相关模式作为科学素养的函数。然而，结果几乎没有支持有偏见的解释的核心因果主张——科学素养驱动有动机的推理。因此，这些结果反对一种机制，即科学素养驱动有动机的推理可以解释科学素养中两极分化的气候变化信念。这项研究增加了我们对科学素养对公众对有争议科学的信念的作用的日益理解。