Solution aversion: what it is and what are its characteristics

Despite the fact that the scientific community has a broad consensus on issues such as climate change, the effectiveness and safety of vaccines or that the Earth is round, in the general public this consensus shines for its absence.

One might think that denying scientific facts is due to mere ignorance or not knowing about the specific issue. However, an approach has been proposed that focuses attention on the fear of focused solutions to these problems as an explanation for their denial.

This approach is that of the solution aversion model., which has been experimentally approached with the specific case of climate change and conservatism. We will see it in more detail below.

• Related article: "Cognitive biases: discovering an interesting psychological effect"

What is solution aversion?

Currently there are all kinds of topics that, in turn, arouse all kinds of opinions. However, science, from its empirical and objective point of view, has shown the existence of multiple problems that, if they are not solved or some kind of palliative effect, will worsen

. Among these problems we can find the appearance of epidemics, both due to pathogens and bad habits, the increase in murders with firearms or climate change.

Despite the fact that science can demonstrate the existence of these phenomena by recording facts and performing statistical analyzes when appropriate, there is always someone who questions them. In the specific case of climate change, there are not a few people, with a conservative ideological profile, who dare to say that science conventional wisdom is wrong, that there is no evidence that the planet is really warming and that this has been caused by action. human.

Based on this, the American researchers Troy Campbell, specialized in marketing, and Aaron C. Key, an expert in psychology and neuroscience, wondered How was it possible that in the face of an event as scientifically proven as climate change there are people who deny it completely?.

These researchers pointed out that people tend to believe in problems whose solutions we agree on and, in the opposite direction, We do not believe those problems that involve solutions that are very contrary to our way of thinking or that interfere with our style of thinking. life.

This approach allowed them to configure a new perspective: the solution aversion model. With this model they have tried to elucidate a little more why people show themselves to be so significantly polarized on issues that the scientific community has a broad consensus on.

Fear of the problem or fear of the solution?

Logically, it would seem that the accuracy and veracity of a scientific finding should be independent of whether this finding and its consequences are desirable or not. To explain it simply: if a stone falls on our head, this stone will hurt us. That it hurts us is an unwanted consequence of a stone falling on our heads. Even if we don't want to feel pain, we are not going to question the existence of the stone or doubt that this mineral can fall on our heads and hurt us.

However, climate change, the effectiveness of vaccines, the danger of firearms and other issues of broad scientific consensus are not something as simple as an accidentally malicious stone. Are very complex issues whose solution may imply a great mobilization of political, economic and social resources that can come into direct conflict with our lifestyle if we want to solve them.

Research has shown that psychological motivations affect our reasoning. This means that our judgments are not independent of our personal desires and motivations. Even if they put scientific and objective data before our eyes, if the solution proposed for it clashes with our ideology, system of beliefs, opinion or other cognitive, affective and motivational components of our identity we will be more likely to deny the existence of the problem.

• You may be interested in: "Cognitive Psychology: Definition, Theories, and Main Authors"

An Example: Climate Change and the Republicans

It is widely known that there are not a few Republicans (conservatives) in the United States who deny climate change and its anthropogenic cause.

They are skeptical about this issue, despite the fact that earth sciences have shown, through data objectives and measurements of temperature and pollutants in the air that, indeed, warming is taking place global. On the other hand, this opinion is not shared by their rivals, the (liberal) Democrats, who tend to coincide with the scientific community and support the application of measures to alleviate climate change.

The denial of climate change by some and the recognition by others would seem, in the first place, to be due to differences regarding their scientific knowledge. One might think that the level of scientific knowledge among Republicans is lower than that of democrats, making the former have opinions either based on ignorance or on beliefs antiscience. The Democrats, on the other hand, would have received more influence and documentation on the issue, basing their opinions on facts.

However, the fact that republicans deny the existence of climate change seems to be a matter of reason, not ignorance. Nor would it be due to the fear of climate change itself. It is not that they are afraid that the sea level will rise or that the air will become unbreathable, but rather that they have fear of the solutions that should be applied to reduce this phenomenon, and this is where the idea of ​​aversion to solution.

Campbell and Key's group addressed this question experimentally, concluding that indeed, among Republican ranks, climate change denial stems from a style of cognition motivated.. This could explain the fact that despite the existence of documentaries, studies, books and all kinds of resources in which the facts about this issue are exposed, these media have not had as much repercussion among the minds conservative.

Republicans tend to be very supportive of the free market and the most aggressive meritocracy. For them, that a person is successful is due solely and exclusively to his effort. This effort that materializes in large sums of money and, in many cases, in owning a large company, more concerned with profits than with how much it pollutes.

The problem with climate change for the ideal lifestyle of the Republican citizen is that it implies taking political and economic measures that regulate the free market, something that no big businessman would like. Among these measures would be apply taxes for polluting, greater economic control by the government and less commercial freedom, increase in the value of automobiles and prohibition to sell X quantity per year... In short, measures that could reduce the income of companies in a very significant way.

In contrast, the Democrats have fewer concerns about market regulation and are even in favor of intervening in it. Thus, for the democratic way of life, more regulation of the market is far from being a serious problem for his way of life, more supporter of the distribution of assets and of doing everything necessary to offer a better future to society, even if that implies sacrifices economic.

Bibliographic references:

• Campbell, T. H., & Kay, A. c. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relationship between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi-org.sire.ub.edu/10.1037/a0037963.