Solution aversion: what is it and what are its characteristics?

This phenomenon studied by social psychology and sociology goes against logic.

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

One might think that denying scientific facts is due to mere ignorance or lack of knowledge about the particular issue. However, an approach has been proposed that focuses on the fear of solutions to these problems as an explanation for their denial.

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

What is solution aversion?

Nowadays there are all kinds of topics that, in turn, arouse all kinds of opinions. However, science, under its empirical and objective point of view, has demonstrated the existence of multiple problems that, if they are not solved or if some kind of palliative effect is not applied, they will get worse.. Among these problems we can find the emergence of epidemics, both due to pathogens and bad habits, the increase in murders with firearms or climate change.

Although science can prove the existence of these phenomena by recording facts and performing statistical analyses when appropriate, there is always someone who doubts them. In the specific case of climate change, there are more than a few people, with a conservative ideological profile, who dare to say that conventional science is wrong, that there is no evidence that the planet is really warming and that this has been caused by human action.

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

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

This approach led them to develop a new perspective: the solution aversion model. With this model they have tried to elucidate a little more about why people are so significantly polarized on issues on which the scientific community has a broad consensus.

Fear of the problem or fear of the solution?

Logically, it would appear that the accuracy and veracity of a scientific finding should be independent of whether this finding and the consequences of it are desirable or undesirable.. To put it simply: if a stone falls on our head, this stone will hurt us. That it hurts us is an undesired consequence of a stone falling on our head. Even if we do not want to feel pain, we will not question the existence of the stone or doubt that this mineral can fall on our head and hurt us.

However, climate change, the effectiveness of vaccines, the dangerousness of firearms and other issues of broad scientific consensus are not something as simple as an accidentally malicious stone. They are complex issues whose solution may involve a large mobilization of political, economic, and social resources that may directly conflict with our that may come into direct conflict with our way of life should we wish to resolve them.

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

An example: climate change and Republicans

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

They are skeptical of the issue, despite the fact that earth sciences have demonstrated, through objective data and measurements of air temperature and pollutants, that global warming is indeed occurring. In contrast, this view is not shared by their rivals, the (liberal) Democrats, who tend to agree with the scientific community and support the implementation of measures to mitigate climate change.

The denial of climate change by some and the recognition by others would seem, first of all, to be due to differences with respect to their scientific knowledge. One might think that the level of scientific knowledge among Republicans is lower than that of Democrats, causing the former to hold opinions either based on ignorance or anti-science beliefs. Democrats, on the other hand, would have received more influence and documentation about the issue, basing their opinions on facts.

However, Republicans' denial of the existence of climate change appears to be a matter of motivation, not ignorance.. Nor would it be due to fear of climate change itself. It is not that they are afraid that sea levels are going to rise or that the air is going to become unbreathable but, rather, they are afraid of the solutions that should be applied to reduce this phenomenon, and this is where the idea of solution aversion comes in.

Campbell and Key's group addressed this question experimentally, coming to the conclusion that indeed, among the Republican ranks, climate change denial is due to a style of motivated cognition. This may explain the fact that despite the existence of documentaries, studies, books and all kinds of resources that expose the facts about this issue, these media have not had such an impact on conservative minds.

Republicans tend to be very pro-free market and more aggressive meritocracy people.. For them, a person's success is due solely and exclusively to his or her effort. This effort that materializes in large sums of money and, in many cases, in owning a large company, more concerned with profits than with how much it pollutes.

The problem with climate change for the ideal lifestyle of the republican citizen is that it implies taking political and economic measures that regulate the free market, something that no big businessman would like. Such measures would include taxes for polluting, more government economic control and less commercial freedom, increasing the value of automobiles, and prohibiting the sale of X amount per year. and a ban on selling X amount per year... In short, measures that could reduce corporate revenues very significantly.

On the other hand, the Democrats have fewer concerns about market regulation and are even in favor of market intervention. Thus, for the Democratic way of life, greater market regulation is far from being a serious problem for their way of life, which is more in favor of sharing goods and doing whatever is necessary to offer a better future to society, even if that implies economic sacrifices.

Bibliographical references:

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