arbiter
JournalsAccount

Narcissism of Science Denial

Agnieszka Golec de Zavala

Journal of Social Issues2025https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70000article
ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Amid historically low societal trust in science, four cross‐sectional studies ( N = 3856) reveal a link between generic science denial and national narcissism. The findings support the pre‐registered hypotheses that (1) national narcissism (a desire for national recognition) and ingroup satisfaction (pride in national value) have opposite unique associations with science denial (rejection of scientific consensus and generalized suspicion toward scientific experts) and (2) opposite indirect associations with specific outcomes of science denial during the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond (climate change denial, anti‐vaccination attitude, and support for unregulated “alternative” medicine). After their common variance is controlled, national narcissism is positively associated with generic science denial and its outcomes, while national ingroup satisfaction is associated negatively. National narcissism was the strongest predictor of science denial, surpassing other established predictors such as low education and political conservatism. Studies 1 and 2 showed additionally, that vulnerable narcissistic personality was the second strongest predictor of generic science denial, demonstrating for the first time, that the narcissistic need to be recognized as better than others underlies generic science denial.

6 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70000

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{agnieszka2025,
  title        = {{Narcissism of Science Denial}},
  author       = {Agnieszka Golec de Zavala},
  journal      = {Journal of Social Issues},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.70000},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Narcissism of Science Denial

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.44 × 0.4 = 0.18
M · momentum0.65 × 0.15 = 0.10
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.