Offline or online? The same liberals judge their science knowledge very differently

Extreme liberals who get their science information from newspapers, television, and conversations with friends and family are the most likely of any group to overestimate how much science they actually know. The same ideological group, when it gets science information online, is the least likely of any group to do so. That contrast does not appear among extreme conservatives.

Those are the central findings of an analysis of General Social Survey data published in Public Understanding of Science by Marcus Mann and Cyrus Schleifer. The study examined how accurately people assess their own scientific understanding — a measure of the gap between perceived and actual knowledge — and how that accuracy varies by ideology and by where people get their science news.

The pattern is specific. It is not that extreme liberals are uniformly overconfident, nor that they are uniformly accurate. The same ideological group lands at opposite ends of the overestimation scale depending on whether its science information comes from offline sources or from the internet. Among extreme conservatives, the offline-online distinction did not produce a comparable split.

The finding complicates the assumption that science-knowledge overconfidence is purely a partisan or ideological phenomenon. If media format — offline versus online — is associated with how accurately people assess their own scientific understanding, then efforts to improve science literacy and public discourse may need to focus on how people consume science information, not just what they believe.

The internet has changed how people encounter scientific information, exposing them to both established findings and misleading claims. Unlike traditional media, where editors and professional journalists usually decide which information reaches the public, online platforms allow almost anyone to publish their views regardless of scientific expertise. Social science research continues to examine echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation in online discussions around science.

What it does show is that the overconfidence gap is not simply a story about ideology. Where people get their science news appears to matter — at least for one ideological group, and at least in this dataset.