culture and tradition are as important as science essay conclusion

Essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition

Students are often asked to write an essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition

Introduction.

Culture and tradition are vital aspects of our lives. They define our identity, guide our behavior, and connect us to our history.

The Role of Culture

Culture is the shared values, beliefs, and customs of a group. It shapes our thinking and decisions, making us unique.

Significance of Traditions

Traditions are practices passed down generations. They foster unity and continuity, strengthening our bond with our ancestors.

In essence, culture and tradition are the backbone of our society. They provide a sense of belonging and help preserve our heritage.

250 Words Essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition

Understanding culture and tradition.

Culture is the lens through which we perceive and evaluate what is around us. It influences our perspectives, attitudes, and behaviors, serving as a roadmap for both individual and community behaviors. It fosters a sense of belonging and security, reinforcing societal norms and expectations.

Significance of Tradition

Traditions, on the other hand, are specific practices or customs that are perpetuated across generations. They provide a sense of continuity and connection to our past. Traditions can foster unity, create positive memories, and build strong relationships within communities.

Culture, Tradition, and Identity

Both culture and tradition are integral to identity formation. They define our roots and give us a sense of belonging. They shape our worldview and influence our values, thus impacting our decisions and actions.

Preserving Culture and Tradition

In an increasingly globalized world, there’s a risk of cultural erosion. It is essential to preserve culture and tradition, not as unchangeable relics of the past, but as dynamic entities that evolve while retaining their core essence. This preservation promotes diversity and enriches global understanding.

In conclusion, culture and tradition are not just about the past. They are living, dynamic aspects of social life that play a critical role in shaping our present and future. Their importance lies in their capacity to promote social cohesion, personal identity, and mutual understanding.

500 Words Essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition

The essence of identity and belonging.

Culture and tradition are the bedrock of our identity. They offer a unique lens through which we view and interpret the world. Our cultural heritage, expressed through language, art, rituals, and social norms, shapes our worldview and forms our unique identity. This identity, in turn, fosters a sense of belonging, a vital aspect of our psychological well-being.

Preservation of Historical Continuity

Traditions serve as a bridge between the past, present, and future, ensuring historical continuity. They preserve and pass on the wisdom, knowledge, and experiences of previous generations. This continuity provides a sense of stability and predictability, which is essential in a rapidly changing world.

Contribution to Social Cohesion

Role in moral and ethical development.

Culture and tradition also play a significant role in moral and ethical development. They instill values, norms, and moral codes that guide individual behavior and social interactions. These ethical frameworks help maintain social order and harmony, promoting cooperative and responsible behavior.

Challenges and Evolution

Despite their importance, culture and tradition are not static; they evolve over time. Societies must balance the preservation of cultural heritage with the need for adaptation and progress. Unquestioned adherence to outdated traditions can hinder societal growth and development. Conversely, the complete abandonment of cultural practices can lead to a loss of identity and historical continuity.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

One Comment

The Importance of My Culture

Categories: Heritage Tradition

About this sample

Words: 833 |

Published: Mar 5, 2024

Words: 833 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Arts & Culture

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1374 words

2 pages / 897 words

3 pages / 1442 words

2 pages / 738 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Tradition

Hawaiian culture is filled with many different traditions that emphasize its values, however one would be hard-pressed to find a tradition as representative of Hawaiian culture as the luau celebration. Generally, the luau serves [...]

The Hmong people, an ethnic group predominantly found in regions of China, Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand, possess a rich cultural and spiritual heritage. Central to Hmong culture is their unique set of religious beliefs and [...]

Thanksgiving is an annual holiday celebrated primarily in the United States and Canada, characterized by feasting, gratitude, and a sense of community. The holiday has its roots in the early 17th century, when Pilgrims and [...]

The Marrow of Tradition, written by Charles W. Chesnutt in 1901, is a thought-provoking novel that delves into the complex issues of race, power, and societal change in the American South during the late 19th century. Through [...]

Health communication has been a problem in my life lately, especially in the past few years, but it's a problem that I can influence. My mom has been in and out of the hospital. Therefore, I have been to lot of meetings with [...]

Global culture could be equalled to global economic, which is a trend of global development. Nowadays, communications and technologies expand by leaps and bounds and it provides an easier way for us to communicate especially the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

How Does Culture Influence Science?

Understand the relationship between culture and science, exploring how scientific discoveries can be influenced by cultural factors.

The concept of how culture influences science explores how cultural beliefs, values, and practices can structure scientific research, knowledge, and practices. Culture can have a significant impact on the way that scientists do research questions, interpret data, and communicate their findings to others.

A question nowadays is: How does culture influence science? Well, different cultures may have different ways of understanding and classifying phenomena, which can affect the development of scientific theories and models. Cultural values and beliefs can modify the way scientific research is funded, prioritized, and communicated to the public, which can in turn affect the impact and accessibility of scientific knowledge.

The involvement and representation of diverse cultures in science are crucial for promoting innovation and advancing scientific understanding. Recognizing and embracing cultural diversity in science can lead to an inclusive scientific inquiry, and bring more effective solutions to scientific problems.

culture and tradition are as important as science essay conclusion

What are the results of interactions between science and culture?

The results of interactions between science and culture can be both positive and negative. Cultural beliefs, values, and practices can influence the direction and focus of scientific research, leading to discoveries and innovations that are more relevant. For example, traditional ecological knowledge can inform scientific research on biodiversity conservation, while cultural practices and traditions can inspire the development of new technologies and medicines.

On the other hand, cultural influence and stereotypes can also affect the interpretation of scientific data and the development of new technologies. Conflicts between science and culture can arise when scientific discoveries challenge deeply-held cultural beliefs and practices. For example, debates over evolution in schools can be a contentious issue in some cultures.

Recognizing how culture can influence science is important for ensuring that scientific research is inclusive and objective. This requires a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in scientific research and education, as well as a willingness to engage in dialogue and collaboration across cultural boundaries. The integration of diverse perspectives and knowledge systems can lead to more effective scientific research that benefits society.

Cultural factors in science

Cultural factors in science are how cultural beliefs, values, and practices can influence scientific research and practices. Some examples of cultural factors in science include:

Worldviews and beliefs: Scientists are influenced by their own beliefs and cultural backgrounds, which can impact the types of research questions they ask and the methods they use to answer those questions. For example, a scientist who believes in a holistic approach to health may focus on alternative therapies rather than Western medicine.

Cultural Stereotypes: Cultural stereotypes can affect the interpretation of scientific data and the development of new technologies. For instance, gender biases can lead to the underrepresentation of women in scientific research, while cultural stereotypes about race and ethnicity can lead to health disparities in medical research and treatment.

Traditional knowledge: Traditional knowledge and practices can stagnate scientific research and innovation while new practices can inspire the development of new research and results, for example, new medicines.

How can cultural evolution shape science?

Culture and science are closely interrelated. Science is not just a product of individual scientists and their discoveries, it is also shaped by the culture in which it is practiced. Cultural evolution, which refers to the process by which cultural traits, ideas, and practices are transmitted and modified over time, can have a significant impact on how science develops.

Here are some ways in which cultural evolution can shape science:

Values and beliefs

Science is influenced by the values and beliefs of the culture in which it is practiced. For example, a culture that values material progress may invest more resources in scientific research that can lead to technological advancements.

Historical context

The historical context in which science develops can also shape its trajectory. For instance, the scientific revolution of the 17th century was shaped by the Renaissance humanist movement, which accentuated the importance of reason and empirical observation. Another example, during World War II, there was a significant push for research in the fields of physics and chemistry to support the war effort.

Social norms

Social and cultural norms can impact the participation and inclusion of different groups in scientific research. For example, if a society has a gender or racial biases, those may affect who is encouraged to pursue a career in science and who is provided with research opportunities.

Communication and dissemination of scientific knowledge

C ultural norms and values can also influence the way scientific knowledge is communicated and disseminated to the public. For example, if society places a high value on individualism, scientific research may be presented in a way that emphasizes individual achievement rather than collective efforts.

So, how does culture influence science? Another answer to that question, is that cultural evolution plays a significant role in shaping the questions we ask, the way we conduct scientific research, and how we communicate and disseminate scientific knowledge. Understanding these cultural influences is important for creating a more inclusive and scientific community.

Find the perfect infographic template for you!

Mind the Graph is an online platform that provides scientists with access to a vast library of scientific illustrations, infographic templates, and visualization tools to create engaging and informative visual content for their research, publications, and presentations. Mind the Graph platform helps create visually appealing infographics, making it easy to communicate their research findings to a broader audience.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Try the best infographic maker and promote your research with scientifically-accurate beautiful figures

no credit card required

Content tags

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 04 November 2020

How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa

Theiss Bendixen 1

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 7 , Article number: 135 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

5975 Accesses

4 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

Cultural and media studies
Science, technology and society

A Correction to this article was published on 01 December 2020

This article has been updated

Cultural evolution research is the study of how cultural traits (e.g., beliefs and behavioral patterns) stabilize, change and diffuse in populations, and why some cultural traits are more “attractive” (i.e., more likely to spread) than others. As such, cultural evolution is highly relevant for the emerging “science of science communication” (SSC) in that it can help organize and guide the study of science communication efforts aimed at spreading scientifically accurate information and inspiring behavioral change. Here, I synthesize insights and theory from cultural evolution with central findings and concepts within the SSC with the aim of highlighting the inherent, but underexplored, consilience between these two fields. I demonstrate how cultural evolution can serve as an unifying framework for the SSC and how, conversely, science communication can serve as a fertile testing ground for applying, exploring, and advancing cultural evolutionary theory in a real-world setting that matters. Lastly, I highlight merits and limitations of previous applications of cultural evolution to science communication and conclude with some particularly outstanding questions that emerge at the intersection between cultural evolution and science communication research.

A systems approach to cultural evolution

The Ecology-Culture Dataset: A new resource for investigating cultural variation

Zooming out the microscope on cumulative cultural evolution: ‘Trajectory B’ from animal to human culture

Introduction.

The “science of science communication” (henceforth SSC) arose as a response to the need for evidence-based practices with which to communicate the findings and methods of science and inspire behavior that is consistent with a scientifically accurate worldview (Kahan, 2015 ; Kappel and Holmen, 2019 ). Science and science-based technologies are all around us, and we enjoy their benefits on a daily basis. At the same time, citizens of democratic nations are asked to make personal, social, economic, and political decisions on a host of complicated, science-based issues. And while we have more information at our disposal today compared to any other point in human history, there is also an increased amount of misinformation circulating (e.g., Acerbi, 2020 ; Bergstrom and West, 2020 ; Bode and Vraga, 2018 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2017 , 2020 ; MacFarlane et al., 2020 ; O’Connor and Weatherall, 2019 ; Roozenbeek et al., 2020 ).

SSC is still in its infancy, but as a whole, it has been successful in identifying a range of factors that crucially influence the probability that (mis)information or behavioral patterns spread culturally (for comprehensive reviews, see Jamieson et al., 2017 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ). These factors broadly pertain to (1) the content properties of the information or behavior itself, (2) individual conditions (e.g., preexisting attitudes, values and worldviews), as well as (3) social dynamics (e.g., social norms and incentives). The main body of this paper is organized around these three sets of factors (see Table 1 ) Footnote 1 , Footnote 2 .

Here, I demonstrate how the field of SSC can be fruitfully informed by a consilient field, broadly labeled “cultural evolution”. Briefly put, cultural evolution researchers study the stability, change, and diffusion of cultural traits on an aggregate population-level as a function of both the content of the traits as well as the socio-personal dynamics surrounding cultural traits (for an accessible introduction, see Mesoudi, 2016 ). Cultural evolution research is highly interdisciplinary, methodologically pluralistic, and employs both formal modeling as well as fieldwork and experimental methods to understand the evolution and importance of culture (Creanza et al., 2017 ). A cultural trait (or variant ; Richerson and Boyd, 2005 , pp. 62–64) is understood here as anything that is—at least to some degree—socially transmitted or motivated, including beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, norms, traditions, practices, behaviors, stories, material objects, etc.

Cultural evolution is therefore obviously relevant to the SSC in that it can help identify factors that may increase the spread of accurate information and hamper the spread of misinformation. In addition, at least some cultural evolution researchers share the normative sentiment inherent in the SSC that understanding the origins and dynamics of beliefs and practices can guide campaigns for behavioral change and hence improve the well-being of individuals and societies (e.g., Efferson et al., 2020 ; Muthukrishna, 2020 ). However, the obvious connection between cultural evolution and the SSC currently remains underexplored.

Note here that I am advancing an integrative approach to cultural evolution in that I draw on theory and insights springing from different strains of cultural evolutionary research, particularly “cultural attraction theory” (Sperber, 1996 ) and “dual inheritance theory” (Boyd and Richerson, 1985 ). There is some dispute over the degree to which various strains of cultural evolution research differ in practice and in theory, or whether apparent disagreements mostly stem from differential emphases on various aspects of cultural evolution (e.g., Acerbi and Mesoudi, 2015 ; Buskell, 2019 ; Claidière et al., 2014 ; Morin, 2016 ; Scott-Phillips et al., 2018 ). However, for current purposes at least, I do not regard these disagreements as insurmountable to an integrative cultural evolutionary framework (see also Acerbi, 2020 ; Bendixen, 2019 ; Mesoudi, 2016 ).

This paper is not the first to note the obvious applicability of cultural evolution to science communication. However, while previous applications of cultural evolution to science communication issues have been very valuable as first approximations, I argue that they each suffer from important limitations that prevent them from taking advantage of the full scope of an integrative cultural evolutionary framework. I close with a few particularly outstanding questions that emerge at the intersection between cultural evolution and science communication research, specifically pertaining to the interaction between the three sets of factors.

In the following, then, I offer a concise précis of cultural evolutionary theory and insights relevant for the SSC. I show how cultural evolution research overlaps with and extends central themes, concepts, and findings within the SSC literature. The aim of this synthesis is to highlight the inherent consilience between these two fields and to provide researchers with a road map to explore this potential synergy more deeply.

In sum, I conclude that cultural evolution can serve as a guiding and unifying framework for the SSC and that science communication, in turn, can serve as a fertile testing ground for applying, exploring, and advancing cultural evolutionary theory in a real-world setting that matters.

Content properties

The content properties of a cultural trait influences the likelihood that trait will culturally spread. In cultural evolutionary terms, a trait is said to be “attractive” if it has some intrinsic transmission advantage over other traits—either because people are more likely to pay attention to, remember and transmit that trait due its content (Boyd and Richerson, 1985 , p. 135), or because people psychologically “transform” or “reconstruct” communicated information into ever-more culturally attractive traits (Sperber, 1996 ).

For instance, a burgeoning literature, partly inspired by classical memory experiments (Bartlett, 1932 ), suggests that emotional content, especially the eliciting of negative emotions such as disgust or fear, increases the attractiveness of a cultural trait (e.g., Acerbi, 2019 , 2020 ; Bebbington et al., 2017 ; Berriche and Altay, 2020 ; Blaine and Boyer, 2017 ; Eriksson and Coultas, 2014 ; Eriksson et al., 2016 ; Fessler et al., 2014 ; Stubbersfield et al., 2015 , 2017a , 2017b ; Vosoughi et al., 2018 ; however, see Altay and Mercier, 2020 ; van Leeuwen et al., 2018 ). Such a finding has consequences for the SSC. Converging evidence indicates that the eliciting of disgust and fear may be partly responsible for hampering science communication efforts, such as convincing people to vaccinate (Altay and Mercier, 2020 ; Miton and Mercier, 2015 ; Jiménez et al., 2018 , 2020 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ) and to accept the safety and benefits of genetically modified foods (Blancke et al., 2015 ).

Another category of content that may render a cultural trait more culturally attractive is socially relevant information (e.g., Acerbi, 2019 , 2020 ; Berriche and Altay, 2020 ; Boudry et al., 2015 ; Mesoudi et al., 2006 ; Stubbersfield et al., 2015 , 2017a , 2018 ), such as perceived intentionality or agency (Rosset, 2008 ). A perceived sense of intentionality has been identified as a crucial ingredient in conspiracy thinking (Douglas et al., 2016 ), which in turn has proven a serious obstacle to successful science communication. Conspiracy narratives undergird many scientifically inaccurate attitudes, e.g., towards vaccination, “alternative therapies”, GMOs, climate change, political events, and pandemics such as the COVID-19 (Bavel et al., 2020 ; Douglas et al., 2019 ; Roozenbeek et al., 2020 ) Footnote 3 . In addition to other shared features (e.g., Butter and Knight, 2020 ; Prooijen, 2018 ; Uscinski, 2020 ), conspiracy theories are first and foremost infused with agency and intentionality (encapsulated in the intuition that “someone must be pulling the strings!”) to explain grand events that, according to mainstream science and journalism, happen for more natural or systemic reasons (e.g., climate change; political upheaval; the natural origin and spread of diseases) (Leman and Cinnirella, 2013 ). The disproportionate amount of intentionality in conspiracy narratives may be one powerful reason for the popular appeal, or cultural attractiveness, of conspiracy theories—especially for those individuals who, for various sociodemographic reasons, may already lack a sense of control in their lives and therefore perceive important world events to be “deliberately orchestrated” (an illustration of how content biases may interact with individual conditions; see next section) (Douglas et al., 2019 ). Conspiracy thinking aside, perceived intentionality, or anthropomorphism , is also a plausible cognitive foundation for other pertinent cultural systems that may influence science communication efforts, for instance religion (Boyer, 2001 ; Guthrie, 1995 ; Peoples et al., 2016 ) and lay beliefs about the economy and politics (Bendixen, 2019 ; Caplan, 2007 ), such as the idea of an “invisible hand” guiding the economy (e.g., Forstmann and Burgmer, 2018 ).

In cultural evolution, what makes a cultural trait inherently attractive is variously referred to as “cognitive factors of attraction” (Sperber, 1996 ) or “content biases” (Henrich and McElreath, 2003 ; Richerson and Boyd, 2005 ), depending on the specific strain of cultural evolution. Cognitive factors of attraction or content biases are often thought of as stemming from the workings of reliably developing psychological apparatus Footnote 4 , such as cognitive biases and heuristics. For instance, it is posited that the human mind is equipped with specific mental machinery that is finely tuned to respond to dangerous stimuli via emotions such as disgust or fear. Such emotions are plausibly argued to have evolved through natural selection as part of our species’ “behavioral immune system” (Apicella et al., 2018 ; Schaller, 2011 ). In the same vein, to the extent that intentionality, social relevance and perceived agency constitute content biases, attending to such cues could be an adaptation for the complex life in social groups (Mesoudi et al., 2006 ).

It would be unreasonable to claim that something like a concept of “content bias” has eluded the SSC entirely. Lull and Scheufele ( 2017 ), for instance, discuss disgust sensitivity as one of several “predispositions” that influence public resistance towards GMOs. More generally, that cognitive biases and their derived logical fallacies obstruct science communication efforts is uncontroversial (e.g., National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ; but see Jiménez et al., 2020 , for a failed empirical attempt to demonstrate the importance of two well-known cognitive biases in the context of vaccine-related information). However, I here propose that a cultural evolutionary framework may help the SSC organize such observations in an unifying framework (see Table 1 ), as well as function as a source of inspiration for identifying novel content biases and explore them in more depth. Identifying content biases that obstruct the spread of scientifically accurate information and behaviors will allow practitioners to tailor more effective science communication campaigns, e.g., through framing (e.g., Druckman and Lupia, 2017 ) or by changing narratives (e.g., Davies et al., 2019 ), in a way that constructively addresses or circumnavigates the problematic appeals inherent in the issue at hand.

The notion of content biases underlines a central insight from the SSC, namely that there exists no silver bullet for successful science communication (Jamieson et al., 2017 ). What makes a communication effort successful on one science-based issue, say vaccination, is not necessarily relevant for another issue, say climate change—although some content biases (e.g., eliciting of emotions) may be relevant for several different issues. This challenge forces science communicators to be knowledgeable about the unique “root causes” of the specific issues about which they are communicating; and it is a challenge that is only deepened further when we consider the roles that individual conditions and social dynamics play in the success (or lack thereof) of science communication efforts.

Individual conditions

A foundational insight of the SSC pertains to how individuals’ preexisting knowledge, attitudes, worldviews, and values impact the spread of (mis)information and behaviors (Jamieson et al., 2017 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ; Walter and Tukachinsky, 2019 ). If a behavioral pattern or piece of information contradicts an individual’s current beliefs about the world, there is a lesser chance that it will be adopted. An attempt at correcting misinformation may even “backfire” (Nyhan and Reifler, 2010 , 2015 ; Peter and Koch, 2015 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ) and increase an individual’s confidence in the misinformation—particularly if the correction challenges a central part of the individual’s personal identity and worldview (Cook and Lewandowsky, 2011 ). While this “backfire effect” has proven somewhat elusive to document empirically (Cameron et al., 2013 ; Ecker et al., 2020 ; Haglin, 2017 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2020 ; Wood and Porter, 2019 ), the dynamic overlaps with other well-documented cognitive phenomena, notably motivated reasoning and confirmation bias ; terms that broadly describe the general human tendency to prefer information that align with preexisting beliefs and attitudes (Kessler et al., 2019 ).

In the framework put forth here, individual conditions include individual psychological differences in general. For instance, belief in “fake news” headlines appears associated with low cognitive reflection and high “Bullshit Receptivity” (the propensity to judge nonsense sentences as profound) (e.g., Bago et al., 2020 ; Pennycook et al., 2015 ; Pennycook and Rand, 2020 ). Likewise, anti-vaccination attitudes have variously been shown to be associated with individual differences in spirituality, personality, religiosity, political ideology, conspiracy thinking, disgust sensitivity, concerns with “naturalness” and “purity” as well as science literacy and trust (e.g., Browne et al., 2015 ; Hornsey et al., 2018 ; Rutjens et al., 2018a , 2018b ; Wolters and Steel, 2017 ).

If indeed, as much evidence suggests, some cultural traits appeal to some people and not others due to individual psychological differences, this has some cultural evolutionary implications. First, it may lead to a form of polarization, absent any social influence, since different people are simply drawn to different beliefs and behaviors. Humans also have a tendency to prefer the company of like-minded or self-similar individuals, a phenomenon known in social network theory as homophily (e.g., McPherson et al., 2001 ). In combination, this may lead to groupings of like-minded individuals separated by ever-widening personal, social, and cultural gulfs. Political polarization is a well-documented phenomenon, and it appears to play a considerable role in science communication settings (Ecker and Ang, 2019 ; Kahan, 2010 , 2012 , 2015 ), at least in some cultural contexts (van der Linden, 2015 ). However, whether polarization mainly arises from individual conditions and homophily or from social dynamics—or a combination thereof—is currently unclear.

A second implication of some cultural traits being more appealing to some people over others may be that specific cultural traits will tend to travel together in “packages” (known as “cultural linkage”) (Yeh et al., 2018 ). In line with this conjecture, and to stay with anti-vaccination attitudes as an illustrative case, Browne et al. ( 2015 ) found that the strongest predictor of anti-vaccination attitudes is the endorsement of unscientific and “natural” health treatments, such as homeopathy and “energy-based” therapies, as well as a general preference of complementary and alternative treatments over conventional therapies. This finding is consistent with much other work (Attwell et al., 2018 ; Buehning and Peddecord, 2017 ; Busse et al., 2008 ; Ernst, 2001 ; Yaqub et al., 2014 ) and suggests that rejection of vaccines and a fascination with “alternative”, “natural”, and “complementary” treatments may collectively constitute a complex that travel together culturally as one larger “package”, possibly linked by individual inclinations towards conspiracy thinking Footnote 5 and/or “magical” beliefs about health (Bryden et al., 2018 ; Kata, 2010 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2013 ). In turn, cultural linkage may give rise to downstream dynamics, such as “hitchhiking” of some cultural traits upon others. If cultural traits that are assumed independent are, in fact, linked and dependent, this may seriously confound statistical analyses of the cultural transmission processes at work in a given case Footnote 6 (Buskell et al., 2019 ; Yeh et al., 2018 ; see also Kandler and Powell, 2018 ). Few studies have applied such theoretical insights to real-world scenarios, but science communication represents an exciting context in which to empirically explore cultural linkage and its consequences.

Compared to the content properties of a cultural trait (previous section) and the social dynamics surrounding cultural traits (next section), individual conditions remain relatively underexamined in cultural evolution theory and research. This might partly be due to (a) the challenges of incorporating something like personal beliefs, values, attitudes, worldviews, and identity into formal population-level modeling (however, see Galesic and Stein, 2019 ; Muthukrishna and Schaller, 2019 ; O’Connor and Weatherall, 2019 , ch. 2; Weisbuch et al., 2005 ); and (b) that much cultural evolutionary modeling has sought to understand the evolutionary implications of different population structures (e.g., size, complexity, interconnectedness) and social learning strategies on the overall fitness of a population, not the spread of specific traditions per se (e.g., Fogarty and Creanza, 2017 ; Muthukrishna et al., 2014 ; Smolla and Akçay, 2019 ; Sterelny, 2017 ). Here, then, is a situation where the SSC has identified a crucial insight—namely that new information generally needs to match preexisting knowledge and values to become accepted—that can inspire advances in the field of cultural evolution.

However, the insight that novel information needs to be congruent with current beliefs and attitudes in order to spread is not entirely absent in cultural evolutionary work. For instance, Soerensen ( 2004 ) discussed how religious traditions can only be transmitted from one cultural context to another if the novel tradition is compatible with the predominant traditions of the present culture. Cultures are thus said to constitute a “cultural immune system” that “selects” which novel ideas to adopt. And although cultural immunology may be an emergent property of cultural systems, at bottom it arguably depends on individual-level cognitive processes.

Cultural evolutionary cognitive psychologists have also identified a category of so-called inductive biases , whereby individuals’ knowledge and expectations influence what cultural information is acquired and transmitted (Griffiths et al., 2008 ). Formal analyses of and behavioral experiments with inductive biases point to the importance of understanding individuals’ preexisting priors when modeling cultural evolution, since inductive biases may off-set otherwise stabilizing forces, such as faithful copying (if inductive bias is at play, copying will only be “faithful” to the extent that the copied trait matches the inductive bias) and direct selection pressures (“a highly counter-intuitive hypothesis will fail to dominate a population, even if there are strong advantages to adopting it”, Griffiths et al., 2008 , p. 3513).

More generally, the cultural evolutionary term, epistemic vigilance , points to a suit of proposed cognitive mechanisms whose function it is to filter communicated information (Blancke et al., 2016 ; Sperber et al., 2010 ). Epistemic vigilance includes the ability to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source (see next section) as well as the relevance of the information and its fit with preexisting beliefs. Information that is relevant to an individual’s worldview but runs counter to it is less likely to be accepted (Mercier, 2020 Footnote 7 ).

As these cultural evolutionary insights suggest, and as is already recognized in the SSC, science communicators must make sure to tailor their communication efforts so that it avoids directly challenging an individual’s preexisting attitudes, beliefs, worldview, values and personal identity (Lewandowsky et al., 2017 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ).

Social dynamics

Much formal modeling work in cultural evolution has focused on the important role that social dynamics, including social learning, norms, and third-party norm enforcement, can play in diffusing and stabilizing a cultural trait (e.g., Boyd and Richerson, 1985 ; Henrich and Henrich, 2007 ; Richerson and Boyd, 2005 ). Social norms influence behavioral patterns through, for instance, “a desire to coordinate, fear of being sanctioned, signaling membership in a group, or simply following the lead of others” (Young, 2015 , p. 359; see also e.g., Nyborg et al., 2016 ; Rhodes et al., 2020 ; Sunstein, 2019 ; Varnum and Grossmann, 2017 ).

A particular species of theoretical models has suggested that social norms and incentives can stabilize traits relatively independently of the content of the traits themselves and even if the traits are harmful for individuals or the population as a whole (Boyd and Richerson, 1990 , 1992 ). Through these and similar models, the SSC may gain theoretical and predictive insights into the social dynamics influencing the success (or lack thereof) of communication efforts aimed at guiding behavioral change by targeting prevalent social norms (Efferson et al., 2020 ; Muthukrishna, 2020 ).

Some empirical groundwork for this avenue of research has already been laid down in the SSC, for instance under the heading of the “cultural cognition thesis” (Kahan, 2010 , 2012 , 2015 ). Rather than evaluating issues on the grounds of bare facts, according to the cultural cognition thesis, people “endorse whichever position reinforces their connection to others with whom they share important ties” (Kahan, 2010 , p. 296). In other words, public disagreement about science-based issues (e.g., climate change, GMOs, vaccination) does not necessarily stem from a lack of relevant knowledge. Instead, whether an individual adopts some information or behavior depends crucially on the social incentives associated with adopting or rejecting it. This could be viewed as a somewhat similar scenario to cultural evolutionary models wherein even harmful cultural traits can stabilize and spread through social incentivizing (i.e., third-party norm enforcement).

The cultural cognition thesis is a foundational concept in the SSC, but it remains to be investigated deeper both theoretically and empirically (van der Linden, 2015 ). For instance, what are the social or cultural prerequisites for a science-based issue to be influenced by the dynamics of “cultural cognition”? How does “cultural cognition” operate in cultural contexts that are less socially and politically polarized than the US? Qualitative predictions derived from modified cultural evolutionary models may help guide science communication research aimed at answering such and related questions as well as prime researchers to collect empirical data aimed at testing and improving the formal models and their predictive scope (Smaldino, 2017 ).

Additionally, cultural evolution research has identified a range of social learning strategies that plausibly evolved in our species in order for individuals to extract generally adaptive information and behavior from their environments (Boyd and Richerson, 1985 ; Henrich, 2015 ; Hoppitt and Laland, 2013 ; Laland, 2017 ; Mesoudi, 2011 ; Richerson and Boyd, 2005 ). These social learning strategies are employed flexibly and include heuristics on whom to imitate (e.g., the majority, or prestigious, successful and/or self-similar individuals), when to imitate (e.g., when uncertain, or when personal information is outdated) as well as what to imitate (e.g., “content biases”, see above) (for a recent review of human social learning strategies, see Kendal et al., 2018 ).

While some recent research have questioned the degree to which people are swayed by social influence in actual (science) communication contexts (Acerbi, 2020 ; Mercier, 2020 ; Mercier and Morin, 2019 ; Morin, 2015 ), these social learning strategies potentially matter, since they can help illuminate the dynamics behind the diffusion of certain information or behavioral patterns (e.g., Barkoczi and Galesic, 2016 ) as well as identify, guide, and target communication and campaign efforts (see, however, Kandler and Powell, 2018 ). For instance, Efferson et al. ( 2020 ) formally modeled campaigns aimed at reversing harmful local traditions such as female genital cutting. Their models rely partly on “spillovers”, an indirect effect whereby a behavioral change among some individuals inspire other individuals to change their behavior as well. This kind of spillover arises from conformist learning, where individuals seek (disproportionately) to behave as the surrounding majority. The spillover effect is a cost-effective and non-confrontational dynamic, and hence holds appeal, because it generates endogenous change: individuals influencing individuals instead of campaigners influencing individuals directly.

Again, that people generally tend to imitate and seek information from what they perceive to be majority (e.g., friends, family, local community, “common knowledge”) or prestige (e.g., celebrities, media pundits, “social media influencers”, “experts” (scientific or self-attested) etc.) sources is well-known within the SSC (e.g., Jamieson et al., 2017 ; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017 ). However, a cultural evolutionary perspective can help organize current findings of the SSC into a coherent framework, motivate science communication researchers to look for social learning dynamics that were previously overlooked (e.g., spillovers) and identify issues and contexts where specific social learning strategies are particularly pertinent.

Previous applications of cultural evolution to science communication

The obvious relevance of cultural evolution research to science communication, behavioral change, and the spread of (mis)information has been appreciated in some earlier work. However, although very valuable as first approximations, I submit that these earlier applications all suffer from important limitations Footnote 8 .

The bulk of previous studies has aimed at identifying the content properties that make (mis)information cognitively and culturally attractive. These include framing effects, narrative, “counterintuitiveness”, social relevance and intentionality, “psychological essentialism”, emotional valence, especially the eliciting of negative emotions such as disgust and fear, as well as a variety of other cognitive biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies (Acerbi, 2019 , 2020 ; Altay and Mercier, 2020 ; Berriche and Altay, 2020 ; Blancke et al., 2016 , 2018 , 2019 ; Blancke and De Smedt, 2013 ; Boudry et al., 2015 ; Claidière et al., 2017 ; Marie et al., 2020 ; Miton and Mercier, 2015 ; Jiménez et al., 2018 , 2020 ; Pluviano et al., 2017 ; Stubbersfield et al., 2018 ).

A few exceptions need mention. Blancke et al. ( 2016 ; see also Boudry et al., 2015 ) discuss “science mimicry” (i.e., cloaking the information or behavior as “scientific” in order to exploit the authoritative status of science) as one strategy by which misinformation can spread. For instance, believers in clairvoyance and telepathy may refer to parapsychological journals for support for their paranormal beliefs. Understanding the appeal of science mimicry requires a focus on the source of information (e.g., prestige bias). While this counts as social influence in the framework laid out here (see Table 1 ), in the main parts of their work, Blancke et al. ( 2016 , 2018 , 2019 ; Blancke and De Smedt, 2013 ; Boudry et al., 2015 ) are preoccupied with the content of misinformation and pseudoscientific beliefs.

Marie et al. ( 2020 ; and, more broadly, the epistemic vigilance framework that they draw from, see Mercier, 2020 ; Sperber et al., 2010 ) also discuss the power of social influence and preexisting worldviews on the spread of (mis)information. However, when it comes to practical recommendations for science communicators, the authors largely ignore these factors and instead focus on content properties, such as framing and different forms of counter-argumentation.

There are several limitations of a narrow focus on content properties in a science communication context.

First, a pure content properties view at least implicitly subscribe to the “knowledge deficit model”, the now defunct hypothesis that if only people had access to more correct information, then they would adjust their worldviews and behaviors to be more scientifically accurate (Simis et al., 2016 ). That individual conditions and social dynamics so fundamentally shape an individual’s behavior and representational beliefs about the world severely undermines this hypothesis. Of course, knowledge is a necessary, albeit insufficient, ingredient for forming scientifically accurate beliefs and behaviors (Jamieson et al., 2017 ; National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, 2017 ). For instance, emerging evidence suggests that knowledge about flawed and misleading argumentation on a given issue (e.g., climate change) can to some degree “inoculate” people from misinformation on that issue (Cook et al., 2017 ; Jolley and Douglas, 2017 ; Lewandowsky et al., 2020 ; Roozenbeek and van der Linden, 2019 ). However, how this “inoculation effect” precisely relates to the “backfire effect” presented above (e.g., under which circumstances will a communicative act inoculate the receiver and when will it backfire?) remains unclear (Chan et al., 2017 ; De keersmaecker et al., 2019 ; Ecker et al., 2017 , 2020 ; Peter and Koch, 2015 ; Schwarz et al., 2016 ; Swire-Thompson et al., 2020 ). Likewise, some research has focused on the role that knowledge, evidence and arguments can play in changing people’s minds. Mercier and Sperber ( 2011 , 2017 ), for instance, argue for an interactionist theory of reasoning , which emphasizes the social nature of argumentation through dialog and a free exchange of viewpoints. By recognizing that reasoning is a social activity (for instance, that people are more likely to be objective when evaluating other people’s arguments than when producing arguments of their own), this view helps make sense of the conditions under which dialogs, debates, arguments, and reasons may be helpful tools in a science communication context (Mercier, 2016 ). But while some empirical evidence may support this approach (Altay and Lakhlifi, 2020 ), and in line with the framework put forth here, real-world debates on science issues (e.g., vaccines, climate change, GMO) are often complicated by psychological and social factors that are orthogonal to the arguments at hand (e.g., Kahan, 2017 ). Future research could look deeper into the role that arguments and reasoning play in the diffusion of cultural traits, and how reasoning may counteract social and content-based appeals of misinformation.

Note also a folk-psychological stance inherent in the knowledge deficit model, namely the notion that beliefs are the main drivers of behavior. However, we humans often act without having explicit, representational, causal beliefs about the world or about the deeper underlying motivations of our own behavior. Many daily acts—such as habits or complex series of procedures, such as cooking and religious rituals—arguably fall in this category. Further, to the extent that beliefs actually do influence behavior, it is even debatable how applicable current research on the importance of content properties in cultural evolution is, since much of this research study how content improve a cultural trait’s memorability, not “believability” or “transmittability” Footnote 9 . However, as has also been pointed out in the context of religious beliefs (Gervais and Henrich, 2010 ), there is an important distinction between remembering something and believing in and/or acting upon it.

In addition, content properties generally do not satisfactorily account for individual (e.g., if anti-vaccination attitudes are so inherently attractive, why do we not all hold anti-vaccination attitudes?) nor cultural (e.g., why do the level of controversy of a science-based topic vary within and across nations?) differences in adoption of scientifically accurate information and behavior (cf. Bendixen, 2019 , for similar criticisms in a related context). Here, individual conditions and social dynamics are crucial. However, a disproportionate focus on either of these sets of factors suffer from their own limitations.

The individual conditions, such as preexisting beliefs, attitudes and worldviews are important factors in determining the adoption or not of information or a behavior. But a narrow view on individual conditions ignores the fact that some content is inherently more attractive than other content and that social dynamics can powerfully influence people’s attitudes, worldviews and behavior.

Conversely, as a representative of a social dynamics view, Efferson et al. ( 2020 ) focus on social learning (specifically conformity) of a behavioral tradition. The authors are right to base their models on the assumption that people do not always behave according to elaborate (or even basic) causal models of the world. Instead, humans often behave according to implicit customs, norms, traditions, etc., without always knowing why we behave as we do (Henrich, 2001 , 2015 ), and important dynamics, such as spillover effects, endogenous change, polarization and tipping points, may arise as a result (Nyborg et al., 2016 ).

But social learning studies, such as Efferson et al. ( 2020 ; see also e.g., Muthukrishna and Schaller, 2019 ; O’Connor and Weatherall, 2019 , and models reviewed herein), typically ignore content properties (traditions may be “attractive” in themselves (Miton and Mercier, 2015 ; Morin, 2015 ), which may off-set social dynamics) and other social learning strategies (such as prestige bias ; Muthukrishna, 2020 ) as well as individuals’ inductive biases, which may counteract (or, conversely, exaggerate) the effects of social dynamics (Griffiths et al., 2008 ).

This review of previous applications of cultural evolution to science communication and behavioral change should not be considered strictly critical. Indeed, the reviewed work has, in its own ways, pioneered important avenues for future research. However, as I have argued, each of these earlier approaches have not been comprehensive enough to take advantage of the full potential of an integrative cultural evolutionary framework. In order to achieve that, we need to consider how the different psychological and social factors interact. I elaborate on this point in the following, and final, section.

Looking ahead

As the previous section illustrates, and in addition to the open queries pointed out along the way, a few particularly outstanding questions emerge at the intersection between cultural evolution and science communication research Footnote 10 :

How do content properties, individual conditions and social dynamics interact to influence the success (or lack thereof) of science communication efforts? Are any of these sets of factors more effective at spreading (mis)information and inspire behavioral change—in general and/or in particular cases?

The three sets of psychological and social factors (Table 1 ) interact in ways that are currently not well-understood. A promising avenue for future research would therefore be to explore the interaction and relative strengths of these sets of factors in science communication contexts with field studies and laboratory experiments (for empirical attempts at this in other contexts, see Acerbi and Tehrani, 2018 ; Willard et al., 2016 ; cf. also Bendixen, 2019 ). Such empirical results could then inform theoretical models, which may generate qualitative predictions that, in turn, can be tested with more focused data collection strategies (Smaldino, 2017 ).

Understanding the relative strengths of different factors is an important endeavor since the factors at work in a particular case have important implications for the success of science communication efforts. Different factors, such as different social learning strategies, have different dynamics, which can be targeted, e.g., tipping points, spillover effects, endogenous change, etc. (Nyborg et al., 2016 ). Whether we can rely on any given dynamic in a particular case depends on the social learning strategies—and other psychological and social factors—at work. Identifying the relevant factors informs science communicators about how (e.g., framing, narratives, etc.) and whom (e.g., prestigious people or the more or less receptive individuals) to target with their campaigns or interventions. Efferson et al. ( 2020 ), for instance, arrive at the somewhat counterintuitive conclusion that in order for spillover effects to be most effective, campaigns should focus on the least receptive of individuals, because these individuals are (per definition) least likely to be influenced. Therefore, if campaigns succeed in changing the behavior of minimally receptive individuals, the more receptive individuals nearby are more likely to be affected by the conformist spillover effect, and the “ripple” of behavioral change may thus travel further in the population.

Efferson et al.’s ( 2020 ) findings are contingent on the specific social learning strategy under investigation, namely conformity (see also Muthukrishna and Schaller, 2019 ). Incorporating other social learning strategies into such models could help shed light on how behavioral change and diffusion of information is achieved in the real world. It remains to be explored, then, how prevalent conformity and other social learning strategies actually are in science communication contexts, and how derived social dynamics compete and combine with individual conditions and “attractive” content to determine the success (or lack thereof) of science communication efforts.

There exists an untapped reservoir of consilience between cultural evolution and science communication research. Cultural evolution can serve as a guiding and unifying framework for a mature SSC. Conversely, science communication offers an exciting and unique opportunity to put cultural evolutionary theory to the test in a real-world setting that matters.

Change history

25 november 2020.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00672-y

01 December 2020

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00672-y

This three-part partition is not watertight and serves mostly heuristic purposes for the present discussion. For instance, it is uncontroversial that personal factors, such as identity and values, are shaped in a dialectical relationship with one’s social surroundings, and that some issues are intrinsically more relevant under some socio-personal circumstances than others (e.g., Douglas et al., 2019 ).

It is possible that a fourth set of factors could in time be added to this framework, namely “ecological conditions”, including material (in)security, the perceived harshness of the local environment, or any other local ecological condition or feature that might influence the salience of some cultural traits over others. There is evidence for such ecological influence in the formation and spread of religious beliefs (e.g., Purzycki, 2016 ) and cultural traditions in general (e.g., Morin, 2015 ; Varnum and Grossmann, 2017 ). More relevant to the present discussion, conspiracy thinking, which often complicates science communication efforts, seems to be more prevalent in politically unstable and materially insecure (e.g., marginalized, low-income, etc.) environments (e.g., Butter and Knight, 2020 , section 3), or in times of crisis (e.g., conflicts, war, pandemics, etc.) (Douglas et al., 2019 ). However, since this potential category of factors has received practically no attention hitherto in the context of science communication, I leave it out for concision.

For instance, “Big Pharma” is said to secretly spread diseases or suppress “natural” cures to serious diseases such as cancer or pandemics such as COVID-19. The conventional food and farming industry is accused of selling “Frankenfoods” to the detriment of the health of the consuming public and the environment. And climate change has been labeled a “hoax” invented by scientists in order to increase their funding revenue or by foreign nations in order to gain the upper-hand in the world economy (e.g., Jamieson et al., 2017 ).

While current research has tended to focus on the cognitive constraints underlying the evolution of culture, cognition is not the only variable that influences the inherent attractiveness of a cultural trait. Historical, societal, and ecological features may also increase or decrease a trait’s cultural attractiveness (see e.g., Morin, 2015 ; Varnum and Grossmann, 2017 ), although this line of empirical research remains relatively scant (Acerbi and Mesoudi, 2015 ; Scott-Phillips et al., 2018 ).

More generally, conspiracy theories also tend to go hand-in-hand, so that if an individual subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they are likely to subscribe to several others as well—even in cases of mutual contradiction (e.g., Miller, 2020a , 2020b ; Wood et al., 2012 ; see also Douglas et al., 2019 ).

Many psychological survey and observational studies analyse their data by adding all predictor variables to the same regression model and then interpreting each coefficient as an effect estimate of the predictor on the outcome of interest. However, this constitutes a classical case of the “Table 2 Fallacy” (Westreich & Greenland, 2013 ), and may render the results unreliable by introducing various biases, especially if the goal is to establish causal relationships (e.g., Achen, 2005 ; Lübke et al., 2020 ; Rohrer, 2018 ). This problematic practice is aggravated further if cultural linkage is at play and not taken into account.

Mercier ( 2020 ) re-labels “epistemic vigilance” as “open vigilance”.

Bavel et al. ( 2020 ) succinctly review evidence from the social and behavioral sciences relevant for understanding and solving psychological and social challenges in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, including how to communicate scientific information. In this specific context, the authors discuss both the importance of content properties of (mis)information (e.g., threat), individual differences in decision-making (e.g., risk perception), as well as social dynamics (e.g., norms and polarization). Although they do not coax their discussion in cultural evolutionary terms, they come very close to applying the kind of integrative approach to science communication that I am advancing here. See also Butter and Knight ( 2020 ), Douglas et al. ( 2019 ), Prooijen ( 2018 ), and Uscinski ( 2020 ) for similar integrative approaches to conspiracy thinking.

A subset of the cited studies on content properties (Altay and Mercier, 2020 ; Blaine and Boyer, 2017 ; Stubbersfield et al., 2018 ) employ a “motivations to share” paradigm, in which, typically, the participant is asked about their willingness to share a test item, or to select or modify, among a range of possibilities, one or a few test items (e.g., stories) to be passed on to another participant. Other work studies the sharing of information on real-world social media platforms (Acerbi, 2019 ; Berriche and Altay, 2020 ). While the motivations to share might in these settings vary across individuals and be somewhat opaque to the researchers (e.g., Mercier et al., 2018 ; Mosleh et al., 2020 ), such paradigms come closer to an ecologically valid measurement of the effect that different content properties have on the “transmittability” of cultural traits.

For further open research questions in the SSC, which could no doubt be fruitfully subjected to cultural evolutionary analyses, see National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine ( 2017 , pp. 91–92, 95–96, 97–98).

Achen CH (2005) Let’s Put Garbage-Can Regressions and Garbage-Can Probits Where They Belong. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 22(4):327–339

Article Google Scholar

Acerbi A (2019) Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0224-y

Article MathSciNet Google Scholar

Acerbi A (2020) Cultural evolution in the digital age. Oxford University Press

Acerbi A, Mesoudi A (2015) If we are all cultural Darwinians what’s the fuss about? Clarifying recent disagreements in the field of cultural evolution. Biol Philos 30(4):481–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9490-2

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Acerbi A, Tehrani JJ (2018) Did Einstein really say that? Testing content versus context in the cultural selection of quotations. J Cogn Cult 18(3–4):293–311. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340032

Altay S, Lakhlifi C (2020) Are science festivals a good place to discuss heated topics? J Sci Commun 19(1):A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010207

Altay S, Mercier H (2020) Framing messages for vaccination supporters. J Exp Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000271

Apicella CL, Rozin P, Busch JTA, Watson-Jones RE, Legare CH (2018) Evidence from hunter–gatherer and subsistence agricultural populations for the universality of contagion sensitivity. Evol Hum Behav 39(3):355–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2018.03.003

Attwell K, Ward PR, Meyer SB, Rokkas PJ, Leask J (2018) “Do-it-yourself”: vaccine rejection and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Soc Sci Med 196:106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.022

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bago B, Rand DG, Pennycook G (2020) Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J Exp Psychol 149(8):1608–1613

Barkoczi D, Galesic M (2016) Social learning strategies modify the effect of network structure on group performance. Nat Commun 7(1):13109. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13109

Article ADS CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bartlett FC (1932) Remembering. Macmillan, Oxford

Google Scholar

Bavel JJV, Baicker K, Boggio PS et al. (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z

Bebbington K, MacLeod C, Ellison TM, Fay N (2017) The sky is falling: evidence of a negativity bias in the social transmission of information. Evol Hum Behav 38(1):92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.07.004

Bendixen T (2019) Sense or non-sense? A critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs. Evol Mind Behav 17(1):29–47. https://doi.org/10.1556/2050.2019.00011

Bergstrom CT, West J (2020) Calling Bullshit: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven World. Random House

Berriche M, Altay S (2020) Internet users engage more with phatic posts than with health misinformation on Facebook. Palgrave Commun. 6(71). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0452-1

Blaine T, Boyer P (2017) Origins of sinister rumors: a preference for threat-related material in the supply and demand of information. Evol Hum Behav 39(1):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.001

Blancke S, Tanghe K, Braeckman J (2018) Intuitions in science education and the public understanding of science. In: Blancke S, Rutten K, Soetaert R (eds) Perspectives on science and culture Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp. 223–242

Blancke S, Boudry M, Braeckman J (2019) Reasonable irrationality: the role of reasons in the diffusion of pseudoscience. J Cogn Cult 19(5):432–449. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340068

Blancke S, De Smedt J (2013) Evolved to be irrational?: evolutionary and cognitive foundations of pseudosciences. In: Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds) Philosophy of pseudoscience: reconsidering the demarcation problem. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 361–379

Chapter Google Scholar

Blancke S, Van Breusegem F, De Jaeger G, Braeckman J, Van Montagu M (2015) Fatal attraction: the intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends Plant Sci 20(7):414–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.03.011

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Blancke S, Boudry M, Pigliucci M (2016) Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience. Theoria 83(1):78–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12109

Bode L, Vraga EK (2018) See something, say something: correction of global health misinformation on social media. Health Commun 33(9):1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1331312

Boudry M, Blancke S, Pigliucci M (2015) What makes weird beliefs thrive? The epidemiology of pseudoscience. Philos Psychol 28(8):1177–1198

Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985) Culture and the evolutionary process. University of Chicago Press

Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1990) Group selection among alternative evolutionarily stable strategies. J Theor Biol 145(3):331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(05)80113-4

Article MathSciNet CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1992) Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ecol. Sociobiol. 13(3):171–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/0162-3095(92)90032-Y

Boyer P (2001) Religion explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books

Browne M, Thomson P, Rockloff MJ, Pennycook G (2015) Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the ‘vaccination confidence gap'. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0132562. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132562

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bryden GM, Browne M, Rockloff M, Unsworth C (2018) Anti-vaccination and pro-CAM attitudes both reflect magical beliefs about health. Vaccine 36(9):1227–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.12.068

Buehning LJ, Peddecord KM (2017) Vaccination attitudes and practices of integrative medicine physicians. Altern Ther Health Med 23(1):46–54

PubMed Google Scholar

Buskell A (2019) Looking for middle ground in cultural attraction theory. Evol Anthropol 28(1):14–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21762

Buskell A, Enquist M, Jansson F (2019) A systems approach to cultural evolution. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0343-5

Busse JW, Wilson K, Campbell JB (2008) Attitudes towards vaccination among chiropractic and naturopathic students. Vaccine 26(49):6237–6243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.07.020

Butter M, Knight P (eds) (2020) Routledge handbook of conspiracy theories. Routledge

Cameron KA, Roloff ME, Friesema EM, Brown T, Jovanovic BD, Hauber S, Baker DW (2013) Patient knowledge and recall of health information following exposure to ‘facts and myths’ message format variations. Patient Educ Couns 92(3):381–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.06.017

Caplan B (2007) The myth of the rational voter: Why democracies choose bad policies. Princeton University Press

Chan MS, Jones CR, Jamieson KH, Albarracín D (2017) Debunking: a meta-analysis of the psychological efficacy of messages countering misinformation. Psychol Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617714579

Claidière N, Scott-Phillips TC, Sperber D (2014) How Darwinian is cultural evolution? Philos Trans R Soc B 369(1642):20130368. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0368

Claidière N, Trouche E, Mercier H (2017) Argumentation and the diffusion of counter-intuitive beliefs. J Exp Psychol 146(7):1052–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000323

Cook J, Lewandowsky S (2011) The debunking handbook. University of Queensland, St. Lucia

Cook J, Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH (2017) Neutralizing misinformation through inoculation: exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. PLoS ONE 12(5):e0175799. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799

Creanza N, Kolodny O, Feldman MW (2017) Cultural evolutionary theory: how culture evolves and why it matters. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114(30):7782–7789. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620732114

Davies SR, Halpern M, Horst M, Kirby D, Lewenstein B (2019) Science stories as culture: experience, identity, narrative and emotion in public communication of science. J Sci Commun 18(5):A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18050201

De keersmaecker J, Dunning D, Pennycook G, Rand DG, Sanchez C, Unkelbach C, Roets A (2019) Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219853844

Douglas KM, Sutton RM, Callan MJ, Dawtry RJ, Harvey AJ (2016) Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Think Reason 22(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586

Douglas KM, Uscinski JE, Sutton RM, Cichocka A, Nefes T, Ang CS, Deravi F (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychol 40(S1):3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568

Druckman JN, Lupia A (2017) Using frames to make scientific communication more effective. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 351–360

Ecker UKH, Ang LC (2019) Political attitudes and the processing of misinformation corrections. Political Psychol 40(2):241–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12494

Ecker UKH, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S (2017) Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction? J Appl Res Memory Cogn 6(2):185–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.01.014

Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Chadwick M (2020) Can corrections spread misinformation to new audiences? Testing for the elusive familiarity backfire effect. Cogn Res 5(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00241-6

Efferson C, Vogt S, Fehr E (2020) The promise and the peril of using social influence to reverse harmful traditions. Nat Hum Behav 4(1):55–68. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0768-2

Eriksson K, Coultas JC (2014) Corpses, maggots, poodles and rats: emotional selection operating in three phases of cultural transmission of urban legends. J Cogn Cult 14(1–2):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342107

Eriksson K, Coultas JC, de Barra M (2016) Cross-cultural differences in emotional selection on transmission of information. J Cogn Cult 16(1–2):122–143. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342171

Ernst E (2001) Rise in popularity of complementary and alternative medicine: reasons and consequences for vaccination. Vaccine 20:S90–S93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-410X(01)00290-0

Fessler DMT, Pisor AC, Navarrete CD (2014) Negatively-biased credulity and the cultural evolution of beliefs. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95167. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095167

Article ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Fogarty L, Creanza N (2017) The niche construction of cultural complexity: Interactions between innovations, population size and the environment. Philos Trans R Soc B 372(1735):20160428. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0428

Forstmann M, Burgmer P (2018) The mind of the market: lay beliefs about the economy as a willful, goal-oriented agent. Behav Brain Sci 41:E169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X18000353

Galesic M, Stein DL (2019) Statistical physics models of belief dynamics: theory and empirical tests. Physica A 519:275–294

Article ADS Google Scholar

Gervais WM, Henrich J (2010) The Zeus Problem: why representational content biases cannot explain faith in gods. J Cogn Cult 10(3–4):383–389. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853710X531249

Griffiths TL, Kalish ML, Lewandowsky S (2008) Theoretical and empirical evidence for the impact of inductive biases on cultural evolution. Philos Trans R Soc B 363(1509):3503–3514. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0146

Guthrie S (1995) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press

Haglin K (2017) The limitations of the backfire effect. Res Politics 4(3):2053168017716547. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168017716547

Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Fielding KS (2018) The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: a 24-nation investigation. Health Psychol 37(4):307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000586

Hoppitt W, Laland KN (2013) Social learning: an introduction to mechanisms, methods, and models. Princeton University Press

Henrich J (2001) Cultural transmission and the diffusion of innovations: adoption dynamics indicate that biased cultural transmission is the predominate force in behavioral change. Am Anthropol 103(4):992–1013

Henrich J (2015) The secret of our success: how culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press

Henrich N, Henrich J (2007) Why humans cooperate: a cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford University Press

Henrich J, McElreath R (2003) The evolution of cultural evolution. Evol Anthropol 12(3):123–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.10110

Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA (eds) (2017) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press

Jiménez ÁV, Mesoudi A, Tehrani JJ (2020) No evidence that omission and confirmation biases affect the perception and recall of vaccine-related information. PLoS ONE 15(3):e0228898. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228898

Jiménez ÁV, Stubbersfield JM, Tehrani JJ (2018) An experimental investigation into the transmission of antivax attitudes using a fictional health controversy. Soc Sci Med 215:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.032

Jolley D, Douglas KM (2017) Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J Appl Soc Psychol 47(8):459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12453

Kahan DM (2010) Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463:296–297

Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Kahan DM (2012) Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M (eds) Handbook of risk theory. Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 725–759

Kahan DM (2015) What is the science of science communication? J Sci Commun 14(3):1–12

Kahan DM (2017) Protecting or polluting the science communication environment?: The case of childhood vaccines. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 421–432

Kandler A, Powell A (2018) Generative inference for cultural evolution. Philos Trans R Soc Bs 373(1743):20170056. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0056

Kata A (2010) A postmodern Pandora’s box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine 28(7):1709–1716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.12.022

Kappel K, Holmen SJ (2019) Why science communication, and does it work? A taxonomy of science communication aims and a survey of the empirical evidence. Front Commun 4(55). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00055

Kendal RL, Boogert NJ, Rendell L, Laland KN, Webster M, Jones PL (2018) Social learning strategies: bridge-building between fields. Trends Cogn Sci 22(7):651–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.003

Kessler ED, Braasch JLG, Kardash CM (2019) Individual differences in revising (and maintaining) accurate and inaccurate beliefs about childhood vaccinations. Discourse Process 56(5–6):415–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2019.1596709

Laland KN (2017) Darwin’s unfinished symphony: how culture made the human mind. Princeton University Press

Leman PJ, Cinnirella M (2013) Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure. Front Psychol 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00378

Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Cook J (2017) Beyond misinformation: understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 6(4):353–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008

Lewandowsky S, Gignac GE, Oberauer K (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE 8(10):e75637. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637

Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH et al. (2020) The Debunking Handbook 2020. Available at https://sks.to/db2020 . https://doi.org/10.17910/b7.1182

Lübke K, Gehrke M, Horst J, Szepannek G (2020) Why We Should Teach Causal Inference: Examples in Linear Regression with Simulated Data. J Stat Educ 28(2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2020.1752859

Lull RB, Scheufele DA (2017) Understanding and overcoming fear of the unnatural in discussion of GMOs. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan D, Scheufele DA (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 409–420

MacFarlane D, Hurlstone MJ, Ecker UKH (2020) Protecting consumers from fraudulent health claims: a taxonomy of psychological drivers, interventions, barriers, and treatments. Soc Sci Med 259:112790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112790

Marie A, Altay S, Strickland B (2020) The cognitive foundations of misinformation on science. EMBO Rep 21(4):e50205. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050205

McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415

Miller JM (2020a) Do COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs form a monological belief system? Can J Political Sci/Rev Can Sci Politique 53(2):319–326. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423920000517

Miller JM (2020b) Psychological, political, and situational factors combine to boost COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Can J Political Sci 53(2):327–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842392000058X

Mercier H (2016) The argumentative theory: predictions and empirical evidence. Trends Cogn Sci 20(9):689–700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.001

Mercier H (2020) Not born yesterday: the science of who we trust and what we believe. Princeton University Press

Mercier H, Majima Y, Miton H (2018) Willingness to transmit and the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs. Appl Cogn Psychol 32(4):499–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3413

Mercier H, Morin O (2019) Majority rules: how good are we at aggregating convergent opinions? Evol Hum Sci 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/ehs.2019.6

Mercier H, Sperber D (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav Brain Sci 34(2):57–74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968

Mercier H, Sperber D (2017) The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press, pp. vi, 39

Mesoudi A (2011) Cultural evolution: how Darwinian theory can explain human culture and synthesize the social sciences. University of Chicago Press

Mesoudi A (2016) Cultural evolution: a review of theory, findings and controversies. Evol Biol 43(4):481–497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9320-0

Mesoudi A, Whiten A, Dunbar R (2006) A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. Br J Psychol (London, England: 1953) 97(Part 3):405–423. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X85871

Miton H, Mercier H (2015) Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends Cogn Sci 19(11):633–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.08.007

Morin O (2015) How traditions live and die. Oxford University Press

Morin O (2016) Reasons to be fussy about cultural evolution. Biol Philos 31:447–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-016-9516-4

Mosleh M, Pennycook G, Rand DG (2020) Self-reported willingness to share political news articles in online surveys correlates with actual sharing on Twitter. PLoS ONE 15(2):e0228882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228882

Muthukrishna M (2020) Cultural evolutionary public policy. Nat Hum Behav 4(1):12–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0780-6

Muthukrishna M, Schaller M (2019) Are collectivistic cultures more prone to rapid transformation? Computational models of cross-cultural differences, social network structure, dynamic social influence, and cultural change. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 24(2):103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868319855783

Muthukrishna M, Shulman BW, Vasilescu V, Henrich J (2014) Sociality influences cultural complexity. Proc R Soc 281(1774). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2511

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Communicating science effectively: a research agenda. National Academies Press

Nyborg K, Anderies JM, Dannenberg A et al. (2016) Social norms as solutions. Science 354(6308):42–43. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8317

Nyhan B, Reifler J (2010) When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behav 32(2):303–330

Nyhan B, Reifler J (2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33(3):459–464

O’Connor C, Weatherall J (2019) The misinformation age: how false beliefs spread. Yale University Press

Peoples HC, Duda P, Marlowe FW (2016) Hunter–Gatherers and the origins of religion. Hum Nat 27(3):261–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9260-0

Pennycook G, Cheyne JA, Barr N, Koehler DJ, Fugelsang JA (2015) On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgm Decis Mak 10:549–563

Pennycook G, Rand DG (2020) Who falls for fake news? The roles of bullshit receptivity, overclaiming, familiarity, and analytic thinking. J Personal 88(2):185–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12476

Prooijen J-W (2018) The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge

Peter C, Koch T (2015) When debunking scientific myths fails (and when it does not): the backfire effect in the context of journalistic coverage and immediate judgments as prevention strategy. Sci Commun. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015613523

Pluviano S, Watt C, Sala SD (2017) Misinformation lingers in memory: failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PLoS ONE 12(7):e0181640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181640

Purzycki BG (2016) The evolution of Gods’ minds in the Tyva Republic. Curr Anthropol 57(S13):S88–S104. https://doi.org/10.1086/685729

Rhodes N, Shulman HC, McClaran N (2020) Changing norms: a meta-analytic integration of research on social norms appeals. Hum Commun Res. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqz023

Richerson PJ, Boyd R (2005) Not by genes alone: how culture transformed human evolution. University of Chicago Press

Rohrer JM (2018) Thinking Clearly About Correlations and Causation: Graphical Causal Models for Observational Data. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 1(1):27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245917745629

Rosset E (2008) It’s no accident: our bias for intentional explanations. Cognition 108(3):771–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.001

Article MathSciNet PubMed Google Scholar

Roozenbeek J, van der Linden S (2019) Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Commun 5(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0279-9

Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, van der Bles AM, van der Linden S (2020) Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R. Soc. Open Sci. 7(10):201199

Rutjens BT, Heine SJ, Sutton RM, van Harreveld F (2018a) Attitudes towards science. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 57:125–165

Rutjens BT, Sutton RM, van der Lee R (2018b) Not all skepticism is equal: exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 44(3):384–405

Schaller M (2011) The behavioural immune system and the psychology of human sociality. Philos Trans R Soc B 366(1583):3418–3426. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0029

Scott-Phillips T, Blancke S, Heintz C (2018) Four misunderstandings about cultural attraction. Evol Anthropol 27(4):162–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/evan.21716

Schwarz N, Newman E, Leach W (2016) Making the truth stick & the myths fade: lessons from cognitive psychology. Behavi Sci Policy 2(1):85–95. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsp.2016.0009

Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK (2016) The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25(4):400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749

Smaldino PE (2017) Models are stupid, and we need more of them. In: Vallacher RR, Nowak A, Read SJ (eds) Computational social psychology, Ch. 14. Psychology Press

Smolla M, Akçay E (2019) Cultural selection shapes network structure. Sci Adv 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw0609

Soerensen J (2004) Religion, evolution and an immunology of cultural systems. Evol Cogn 10(1):61–73

Sperber D (1996) Explaining culture. Blackwell Publishers

Sperber D, Clément F, Heintz C, Mascaro O, Mercier H, Origgi G, Wilson D (2010) Epistemic vigilance. Mind Language 25(4):359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

Sterelny K (2017) Cultural evolution in California and Paris. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C 62:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2016.12.005

Stubbersfield JM, Flynn EG, Tehrani JJ (2017a) Cognitive evolution and the transmission of popular narratives: a literature review and application to urban legends. Evol Stud Imaginative Cult 1(1):121–136. https://doi.org/10.26613/esic.1.1.20 . JSTOR

Stubbersfield JM, Tehrani JJ, Flynn EG (2015) Serial killers, spiders and cybersex: social and survival information bias in the transmission of urban legends. Br J Psychol 106(2):288–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12073

Stubbersfield JM, Tehrani JJ, Flynn EG (2017b) Chicken tumours and a fishy revenge: evidence for emotional content bias in the cumulative recall of urban legends. J Cogn Cult 17(1–2):12–26. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12342189

Stubbersfield J, Tehrani J, Flynn E (2018) Faking the news: intentional guided variation reflects cognitive biases in transmission chains without recall. Cult Sci J 10(1):54–65. https://doi.org/10.5334/csci.109

Sunstein CR (2019) How change happens. The MIT Press

Swire-Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D (2020) Searching for the backfire effect: measurement and design considerations. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ba2kc

Uscinski JE (2020) Conspiracy theories: a primer. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

van der Linden S (2015) A conceptual critique of the cultural cognition thesis. Sci Commun. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015614970

van Leeuwen F, Parren N, Miton H, Boyer P (2018) Individual choose-to-transmit decisions reveal little preference for transmitting negative or high-arousal content. J Cogn Cult 18(1–2):124–153. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685373-12340018

Varnum MEW, Grossmann I (2017) Cultural change: the how and the why. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(6):956–972. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699971

Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science 359(6380):1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

Walter N, Tukachinsky R (2019) A meta-analytic examination of the continued influence of misinformation in the face of correction: how powerful is it, why does it happen, and how to stop it? Commun Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219854600

Weisbuch G, Deffuant G, Amblard F (2005) Persuasion dynamics. Physica A 353(C):555–575

Westreich D, Greenland S (2013) The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. Am J Epidemiol 177(4):292–298. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws412

Willard AK, Henrich J, Norenzayan A (2016) Memory and belief in the transmission of counterintuitive content. Hum Nat 27(3):221–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-016-9259-6

Wolters EA, Steel BS (2017) When ideology trumps science: why we question the experts on everything from climate change to vaccinations. Praeger

Wood MJ, Douglas KM, Sutton RM (2012) Dead and alive: beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786

Wood T, Porter E (2019) The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav 41(1):135–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y

Yaqub O, Castle-Clarke S, Sevdalis N, Chataway J (2014) Attitudes to vaccination: a critical review. Soc Sci Med 112:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.04.018

Yeh DJ, Fogarty L, Kandler A (2018) Cultural linkage: the influence of package transmission on cultural dynamics. Proc R Soc B 286(1916):20191951. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.1951

Young HP (2015) The evolution of social norms. Annu Rev Econ 7(1):359–387. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080614-115322

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Alberto Acerbi and Benjamin G. Purzycki for very constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. I thank Aarhus University Research Foundation for generous support.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark

Theiss Bendixen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Theiss Bendixen .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bendixen, T. How cultural evolution can inform the science of science communication—and vice versa. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7 , 135 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00634-4

Download citation

Received : 26 May 2020

Accepted : 14 October 2020

Published : 04 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00634-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

IMAGES

DXC essay
The Importance of Culture
Explore the Importance of Cultures and Tradition Free Essay Example
(PDF) An essay on culture
Importance of Culture and Traditions Essay
Mastering the Importance of Culture Essay: Pro Tips, Examples, and

VIDEO

SSLC SOCIAL SCIENCE
Turkey || culture || history || Sightseeing features remarkably praiseworthy glorious and exclusive
Starting Political Science Essay 1
Culture vs Tradition??
Science ke karishme essay
Why Culture is So Important When Learning a New Language

COMMENTS

Essay on Importance of Culture and Tradition - AspiringYouths
In conclusion, culture and tradition are not just about the past. They are living, dynamic aspects of social life that play a critical role in shaping our present and future. Their importance lies in their capacity to promote social cohesion, personal identity, and mutual understanding.
The Importance Of Cultural Traditions: [Essay Example], 655 ...
In conclusion, cultural traditions are not just a relic of the past; they are a vital part of our present and future. They shape our identities, provide us with a sense of belonging, preserve and transmit knowledge, foster social cohesion, and contribute to personal and collective well-being.
Culture and Its Importance: [Essay Example], 571 words
This essay aims to explore the importance of culture in various aspects of human life, including social, economic, and personal development. By analyzing its impact on education, healthcare, and the economy, we can gain a deeper understanding of culture's significance in society.
The Importance Of My Culture: [Essay Example], 833 words
In today's globalized world, where cultures are increasingly intermingling, it is essential to recognize and celebrate the importance of one's own cultural heritage. In this essay, I will explore the significance of my culture and why it is essential to preserve and promote it.
How Does Culture Influence Science? - Mind the Graph Blog
Culture and science are closely interrelated. Science is not just a product of individual scientists and their discoveries, it is also shaped by the culture in which it is practiced.
SCIENCE VS. TRADITION: UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVES OF CULTURAL ...
In the world today there is a longstanding debate between science and tradition. From stem cell research to prayer in school, issues cover a broad scope in a society that is ultimately being forced to decide between belief systems or scientific research.
Culture and science education in the 21st century: Extending ...
In her essay, Seiler adeptly uncovers what is left traditionally unexamined in cultural studies of science education—the meanings of culture that undergird the work and the conceptual and practical implications of those meanings.
IELTS Writing Task 2: 'traditions and technology' essay
Furthermore, traditions continue to thrive through the integration with technology and modern world. Traditional culture is protected and spread in a more innovative way with the help of up-to-date technology. In conclusion, traditional culture is embracing the exploration of technology, and technological development helps traditions to prosper.
The concept of culture: Introduction to spotlight series on ...
What are the roles of culture in development? How can culture be understood as a process, and how can we conceptualize the relations between cultural processes and other processes that affect development (e.g., social, biological, environmental processes)? How can culture be studied and what methods derive from how you conceptualize culture?
How cultural evolution can inform the science of science ...
As such, cultural evolution is highly relevant for the emerging “science of science communication” (SSC) in that it can help organize and guide the study of science communication efforts...