A new study published to PLoS ONE shows that when science threatens your social identity, you're more likely to attack it online.

Whenever science delves into a controversial arena, internet vitriol follows close behind. Research on topics like gluten sensitivity, vaccines, vegetarianism, and GMOs is regularly targeted. Naysayers often focus their scrutiny on the studies' methodologies or the researchers' credibility. It's all fine and well to apply a dash of skepticism to any new study, but it's equally important to analyze the validity of denigrating comments. Are the concerns legitimate? What motivates them?

German researchers led by Peter Nauroth of Phillips-University Marburg focused on the latter question. Viewing it through the lens of social identity theory, they hypothesized that when scientific findings challenge the social groups with which people identify, people strongly tied to those groups would be more likely to express negativity about the findings or discredit the science behind them.

To test their hypothesis, Nauroth and his team recruited 655 people who played video games and directed them to an online survey ostensibly for the purpose of setting up a new science blog. Subjects answered questions meant to gauge their social identity as gamers then read two summaries of studies on violent video games. One showed that video games were detrimental; the other did not. Subjects were invited to indicate whether they "liked" or "disliked" each study and to share their comments, though it wasn't mandatory.

Nauroth and his team found that subjects who more strongly identified with the gaming community were more inclined to "dislike" and write negative comments about the study showing violent video games to be detrimental. In particular, they were more likely to question the methodology, writing, for example, "The number of participants seems too low to draw conclusions for the population.” (Below: The "-1" section shows the probability of posting a positive comment about the study showing video games to be detrimental. The "1" section shows the probability of posting a negative comment.)

The researchers also ran another study nearly identical to the first with another round of subjects. The only difference was that in some cases, they subtly tried to reaffirm some subjects' social identity, basically by sharing information showing that gamers are intelligent. Gamers who viewed this information were less likely to publish negative comments compared to their peers who did not view the information.

The results of the present research provide an opportunity for reflection. When you find yourself antagonized by a new study threatening your social identity or challenging a treasured belief, take a moment and think: If the study's results were in your favor instead, would you have the same problems with it?

Much of how we interact is motivated by our biases, feelings, and personal identity, so Nauroth's study likely doesn't just apply to gamers.

"Other examples in which our research results might be applicable are men discrediting research on sexism, unionists on research investigating potential adverse effects of unions on the economy, or vegetarians questioning the validity of research showing negative health effects of a vegetarian diet," the researchers say.

Source: Nauroth P, Gollwitzer M, Bender J, Rothmund T (2015) Social Identity Threat Motivates Science-Discrediting Online Comments. PLoS ONE 10(2): e0117476. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0117476

(Top Image: Shutterstock)