The paper investigates the relations between Schwartz’s values and beliefs which may reflect skepticism toward science – specifically vaccine rejection, climate change denial and creationism. Recent research on the causes of anti-science indicates that they may be motivational, pertaining to ideologies, worldviews, and one’s moral codes. Therefore, we postulated that value priority hierarchies hierarchies may be predictors of anti-science. Results (N = 509) indicated that Conservation metatype values were positively associated with anti-science, while Self-Transcendence and Openness to change metatypes were connected with support for science. We also found significant differences in value profiles between participants with lower vs. higher anti-scientific beliefs. We discuss the possible motivational underpinnings of these results.

Clients’ satisfaction with financial advice provided by professional advisors depends on how this advice has fulfilled their expectations and goals. However, once a recommendation is made, a client is unable to predict and evaluate the real financial outcome of the advisor’s proposal. In such a case, she/he can base her/his assessment on the characteristics ascribed to the financial advisor: her/his epistemic authority (competence) and level of caring. Additionally, clients expect to receive a “tailor-made” solution that takes into account her/his individual needs and characteristics. In the present study, we asked participants to evaluate financial experts who had recommended risky vs safe investments. The recommendations were congruent or incongruent with the clients’ risk tolerance (high vs low). The kind of recommendation influenced the participants’ evaluations of the advisors (and as a result, the clients’ perceived satisfaction) only for low-risk tolerance clients. For these clients, investment recommendations that were not adjusted to their levels of risk tolerance led to lower evaluations of the advisors and consequently to lower evaluation of satisfaction with their visits. These lower evaluations regarded both dimensions: the interpersonal aspect (caring) and competence in the field of finance (epistemic authority). Such incongruence between risk tolerance and the riskiness of the recommendation did not affect high-risk tolerance clients’ advisor evaluations.