The Dunning Kruger effect famously describes how those with the least ability are often the worst at understanding just how little they know.  It’s a phenomenon I wrote about recently in the context of political literacy, with those at the extremes most likely to succumb.

A recent study from Washington University in St. Louis highlights how it is also evident in discussions around GMO food.  It found that those who have the strongest opinion on GMO foods, and who believe this is opinion is based upon a high level of knowledge, actually know the least.

The researchers surveyed some 2,000 or so people from the United States and Europe to gauge their opinion on GM food.  The survey included questions that were designed to test the participants knowledge of the topic from both a general science and genetics perspective.

Skewed thinking

This matters, as there is largely scientific consensus that GMO foods are safe for human consumption, and offer numerous benefits to mankind.  Despite this however, opposition to them remains fierce, with around 90% of respondents to the survey reporting some level of opposition to the technology.

“It’s interesting that these data suggest the psychology of GMO foods is different in important ways from the psychology of other controversial scientific topics, such as climate change,” the researchers explain.

The authors believe their findings mirror similar studies, such as the one I mentioned at the start of this post that explored extreme political views.  Both found that those with the most extreme positions thought they had exceptional knowledge of the topic, but actually had terrible knowledge of it.

This not only renders such people ignorant of the key topics today, but their undue confidence also makes it less likely that they will either seek out new knowledge, or even be open to receiving it.

So how can such people update their knowledge?  I recently covered some interesting work that explored the impact of people who had crossed ideological divides, which in this instance just so happened to be from anti to pro GM foods.  It found that such people can be persuasive when their transition was explained to people, although interestingly it made no difference at all when they explained why they had transitioned.

“People exposed to the conversion message rather than a simple pro-GM message had a more favorable attitude toward GM foods,” the researchers explain. “The two-sided nature of the conversion message—presenting old beliefs and then refuting them—was more effective than a straightforward argument in favor of GM crops.”

For science, and indeed society, to progress, it’s vital that citizens are as well informed as possible.  That has become increasingly difficult in recent years, not least due to the volume of misinformation available.  This kind of research is another step in better understanding the terrain, which will be vital in formulating strategies to address the problem.