• We look for flaws in the new information,
• seek information that bolsters our original attitude,
• garner for social validation of our original attitude,
• begin derogating the source of the message,
• show signs of anger and discomfort, avoid the new message altogether,
• or simply assert our confidence in the initial belief more adamantly.

Although typical responses to belief challenging information have been shown in a wide context of belief domains (sports, politics, morals, etc.) and for different sources of information (e.g. film, historical evidence, legal documents, etc.) there is an understanding that people select from available resistance strategies based on how important the issue is to them (if it's something close to your heart, the more resistance you put up), how knowledgeable they are about the issue in general (if you perceive yourself as the world expert in something, the less inclined you might be to accept you were wrong...[just ask your buddies about their NBA playoff predictions!] ), but also on how socially desirable the resistance strategy and its perceived effectiveness (if you're an environmentalist and Sarah Palin provides you with information on why drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is a good idea you might choose "derogating the source" and dismiss her as an idiot (as that may be genrally socially desireable among your social peer group), but if Barack Obama informs you about the benefits of offshore drilling you might opt for politely "looking for flaws in the new information"...you might also call Kevin Costner).

So science tells us that we react in a certain way when politicians, friends, the media or anybody else tells us something that doesn't fit into our existing world view, but what do we do when scientific evidence itself contradicts our dear-to-heart beliefs?

As a study published this month in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology points out, the above listed mechanisms don't really work that well when it comes to information that is provided through scientific research, which therefore might elicit quite different resistance processes to belief-challenging information. For example

" Source derogation [...], might be less effective in response to scientific than nonscientific information [as] [s]cientific information is not usually presented in the form of an obvious persuasion attempt like many kinds of nonscientific information (e.g., advertisements, newspaper editorials, legal arguments, political debates). Thus, a blatant agenda is not often associated with the source of scientific information, especially because scientific researchers usually maintain (in their research reports, at least) a somewhat detached and dispassionate stance from their work."

It is also not that easy to counterargue scientific evidence or to point out a study's methodological flaws, because as laypeople really we often don't understand the methods well enough, and even if we do, more often than not, we are presented the (sexed up) "evidence" without the methods that produced them.
So what do people do? Lie down, roll over and accept that science has proven their stereotypes to be wrong? Unlikely, so here's where I (finally) get to the point:

The resistance strategy to belief-contradicting scientific evidence might just be to claim scientific impotence; the inability of science to address the area of knowledge being challenged.

In many ways scientific impotence - or rather people's strategy of claiming scientific impotence when information contradicts their world views - is the most important reason why scientific evidence often remains ineffective in changing people's understanding of the world around them. Science can tell you about the evolution of life on earth, but you don't want to hear it. And science can inform you on a whole range of moral topics, but this is also something many people don't want to hear. We are selective in what we choose to believe.

Here is a summary of some experiments regarding people's use of the "scientific impotence excuse" as a method of discounting belief-challenging scientific research:

In a first study 84 volunteers participated in a study entitled "Judging the Quality of Scientific Information". Participants were pre-tested for stereotypes regarding their beliefs that homosexuality was related to brain damage, and were then randomly provided with short research summaries regarding the topic. Research summaries were assigned so that half of the subjects received summaries that would contradict their existing stereotype, and the other half would receive topics confirming their belief.

After reading the research reports, participants were asked to rate the results and conclusion of the scientific study summary via the endorsement of the idea that science can/cannot provide answers to the question of the addressed stereotype. Furthermore, participants were also asked to indicate their belief that science could answer questions in a series of unrelated domains (e.g. the existence of clairvoyance, the effectiveness of spanking as a disciplinary technique, the effects of violent tv shows, the power of astrology, and the effectiveness of homeopathic medicine/sugars).

Results for the experiment showed that people who received information that contradicted their initial belief (in either direction!) endorsed the statement that science cannot address the issue of homosexuality and brain damage to a much greater degree: On a nine point scale, where nine was the highest endorsement people who received belief-contradicting summaries chose an average endorsement of 6.1 in comparison to a rating of 3.61 in the group that received confirmatory information and a rating of 4.4 in a control group.

"Thus, it appears that reading belief-disconfirming summaries produced more belief that scientific research could not effectively address the question of whether or not homo- sexuality is associated with mental illness"

Additionally there appeared to be a spill-over of the scientific discounting applied to the alleged homosexuality and brain damage link to the other discussed topics, so that people who received challenging scientific evidence in one domain extended the scientific impotence argument into other domains also.

A second experiment by the same researcher replicated the above results for a different sample of 93 subjects. In addition the second study tried to find out whether having received scientific evidence that contradicted one's beliefs regarding homosexuality, would cause people to be less inclined to seek scientific evidence on an unrelated issue; here the issue of whether the death penalty should be an option in the US judicial system.