Social evaluations of scientific occupations

Delineating between scientism and science enthusiasm: Challenges in measuring scientism and the development of novel scale

Scientism proposes science to be an all-powerful human enterprise, able to answer not only all practical but also philosophical or moral questions. We are taking a psychological approach to scientism, studying uncritical trust in science and uncritical trust in scientists as a part of a unique attitudinal tendency. Our novel measure assesses both kinds of trust through short Thurstone scales allowing us to establish a clear threshold for endorsing scientism, thus effectively delineating it from science enthusiasm, which previous instruments were unable to do. We built and refined a novel scale through five stages in which we consulted relevant literature, experts, and laypeople. We demonstrated that uncritical trust in science and scientists are interrelated, yet distinct constructs. As expected, these two subscales positively correlated with dogmatism, scientific knowledge, and overclaiming, but not with knowledge overestimation. The results suggest the new instrument is reliable, valid, and suitable for the lay public.

How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists

Science can offer solutions to a wide range of societal problems. Key to capitalizing on such solutions is the public's trust and willingness to grant influence to scientists in shaping policy. However, previous research on determinants of trust is limited and does not factor in the diversity of scientific occupations. The present study (N = 2,780; U.S. participants) investigated how four well-established dimensions of social evaluations (competence, assertiveness, morality, warmth) shape trust in 45 types of scientists (from agronomists to zoologists). Trust in most scientists was relatively high but varied considerably across occupations. Perceptions of morality and competence emerged as the most important antecedents of trust, in turn predicting the willingness to grant scientists influence in managing societal problems. Importantly, the contribution of morality (but not competence) varied across occupations: Morality was most strongly associated with trust in scientists who work on contentious and polarized issues (e.g., climatologists). Therefore, the diversity of scientific occupations must be taken into account to more precisely map trust, which is important for understanding when scientific solutions find their way to policy.

Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes

Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (N = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.