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.

Psychological Distance to Science as a Predictor of Science Skepticism Across Domains

This article presents and tests psychological distance to science (PSYDISC) as a domain-general predictor of science skepticism. Drawing on the concept of psychological distance, PSYDISC reflects the extent to which individuals perceive science as a tangible undertaking conducted by people similar to oneself (social), with effects in the here (spatial) and now (temporal), and as useful and applicable in the real world (hypothetical distance). In six studies (two preregistered; total N = 1,630) and two countries, we developed and established the factor structure and validity of a scale measuring PSYDISC. Crucially, higher PSYDISC predicted skepticism beyond established predictors, across science domains. A final study showed that PSYDISC shapes real-world behavior (COVID-19 vaccination uptake). This work thus provides a novel tool to predict science skepticism, as well as a construct that can help to further develop a unifying framework to understand science skepticism across domains.

I am (not) sorry: Interpersonal effects of neutralizations after a transgression

After a transgression, people often use neutralizations to account for their behavior, for instance, by apologizing or offering a justification. Previous research has mostly centered around the intrapersonal effects of neutralizations on actors. Consequently, we know very little of the interpersonal effects of neutralizations on observers' perceptions and judgments. Our overarching hypothesis is that neutralizations that contain an acknowledgment of wrongdoing (i.e., apologies and excuses) lead to more favorable perceptions of the transgressor and the transgression than neutralizations that do not (i.e., justifications). We report three studies (N = 800) to investigate the relationship between the type of neutralization used and observers' perceptions of actors and their behaviors. Our findings show that actor and behavior are evaluated differently depending on whether the neutralization used is an apology, an excuse, a consequentialist justification, or a deontological justification. Overall, justifications led to more negative evaluations (especially when invoking deontological reasoning), while apologies and excuses fostered more positive evaluations. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the social dynamics of norm violations and the social and legal implications for enforcing norm abidance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Scientists, speak up! Source impacts trust in health advice across five countries

We examined how different types of communication influence people's responses to health advice. We tested whether presenting COVID-19 prevention advice (e.g., washing hands/distancing) as either originating from a government or scientific source would affect people's trust in and intentions to comply with the advice. We also manipulated uncertainty in communicating the advice effectiveness. To achieve this, we conducted an experiment using large samples of participants (N = 4,561) from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Across countries, participants found messages more trustworthy when the purported source was science rather than the government. This effect was moderated by political orientation in all countries except for Canada, while religiosity moderated the source effect in the United States. Although source did not directly affect intentions to act upon the advice, we found an indirect effect via trust, such that a more trusted source (i.e., science) was predictive of higher intentions to comply. However, the uncertainty manipulation was not effective. Together, our findings suggest that despite prominence of science skepticism in public discourse, people trust scientists more than governments when it comes to practical health advice. It is therefore beneficial to communicate health messages by stressing their scientific bases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Spirituality is associated with Covid-19 vaccination scepticism

Vaccine scepticism poses a significant global health risk, which has again become clear during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Previous research has identified spirituality as an important contributor to general vaccine scepticism. In the present manuscript, we assessed whether self-identified spirituality similarly contributes to scepticism towards Covid-19 vaccines, vaccine uptake, and indecisiveness in intention to be vaccinated. We conducted three studies online in the UK in late 2020, early 2021, and the summer 2021. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 585), as expected, individuals who strongly identified as spiritual were more sceptical about Covid-19 vaccines. This association was explained by low faith in science, but not by conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, among the vaccinated participants, those who were more spiritual were more indecisive to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), we further found that spirituality directly predicted lower likelihood of being vaccinated against Covid-19 (Study 3, N = 456). We also identified low science literacy as an additional predictor of Covid-19 scepticism, but not self-reported vaccine uptake. To conclude, spiritual beliefs are an important factor to consider when aiming to increase understanding of vaccine-related science scepticism and vaccination rejection.

Social evaluations of scientific occupations

Science and scientists are among the key drivers of societal progress and technological developments. While research has demonstrated that science is perceived as heterogeneous, work on perceptions of scientists usually considers "scientists" as members of a homogeneous group. In the present research, we went beyond this general categorization by investigating differences in social evaluations of different types of scientists. Across four studies conducted in the UK and the US (total N = 1441), we discovered that members of the most frequently mentioned scientific occupations (35 and 36 respectively in each country) are seen as highly competent, relatively moral, but only moderately sociable. We also found that individuals perceive differences between scientific occupations across social dimensions, which were captured in clusters of scientific occupations. Chemists, biologists, and physicists represented the most mentioned and highly prototypical scientific occupations. Perceived prototypicality was primarily associated with competence ratings, meaning that, in the public's view, to be a scientist means to be competent. Perceptions of morality and sociability varied notably across clusters. Overall, we demonstrate that focusing only on "scientists" leads to overgeneralization, and that distinguishing between different types of scientists provides a much-needed nuanced picture of social evaluations of scientists across occupations.

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality

Recent years have not only seen growing public distrust in science, but also in the people conducting science. Yet, attitudes toward scientists remain largely unexplored, and the limited body of literature that exists points to an interesting ambivalence. While survey data suggest scientists to be positively evaluated (e.g., respected and trusted), research has found scientists to be perceived as capable of immoral behavior. We report two experiments aimed at identifying what contributes to this ambivalence through systematic investigations of stereotypical perceptions of scientists. In these studies, we particularly focus on two potential sources of inconsistencies in previous work: divergent operationalizations of morality (measurement effects), and different specifications of the broad group of scientists (framing effects). Results show that scientists are generally perceived as more likely to violate binding as opposed to individualizing moral foundations, and that they deviate from control groups more strongly on the latter. The extent to which different morality measures reflect the differentiation between binding and individualizing moral foundations at least partially accounts for previous contradictory findings. Moreover, the results indicate large variation in perceptions of different types of scientists: people hold more positive attitudes toward university-affiliated scientists as compared to industry-affiliated scientists, with perceptions of the 'typical scientist' more closely resembling the latter. Taken together, the findings have important academic ramifications for science skepticism, morality, and stereotyping research as well as valuable practical implications for successful science communication.

Science rejection in Greece: Spirituality predicts vaccine scepticism and low faith in science in a Greek sample

Recent research has identified spirituality as an important contributor to vaccine scepticism and low faith in science, particularly in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) nations. In the present study, we further tested the generalizability of these findings in a religious South-Eastern European country - Greece, with more extensive measures of key constructs. We replicate previous work using measures of improved construct validity. Spirituality was found to be the strongest predictor of vaccine scepticism and low faith in science. In addition, low science literacy was also predictive of vaccine rejection. Climate change scepticism was not associated with spirituality but with political conservatism, which corroborates previous findings. These results provide further evidence for two previously made observations: science scepticism is heterogeneous, and spirituality is an important factor in shaping science rejection.

The psychological impact of threat and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: exacerbating factors and mitigating actions

In spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. The threat the pandemic poses as well as associated lockdown measures created challenging times for many. This study aimed to investigate the individual and social factors associated with low mental health, particularly perceived threat and lockdown measures, and factors associated with psychological well-being, particularly sense of control. An online survey was completed by participants (N = 8,229) recruited from 79 countries. In line with pre-registered hypotheses, participants showed elevated levels of anxiety and depression worldwide. This poor mental health was predicted by perceived threat. The effect of threat on depression was further moderated by social isolation, but there was no effect of sense of control. Sense of control was low overall, and was predicted negatively by maladaptive coping, but positively by adaptive coping and the perception that the government is dealing with the outbreak. Social isolation increased with quarantine duration, but was mitigated by frequent communication with close ones. Engaging in individual actions to avoid contracting the virus was associated with higher anxiety, except when done professionally. We suggest that early lockdown of the pandemic may have had detrimental psychological effects, which may be alleviated by individual actions such as maintaining frequent social contact and adaptive coping, and by governmental actions which demonstrate support in a public health crisis. Citizens and governments can work together to adapt better to restrictive but necessary measures during the current and future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a difficult time for many; not only are people isolated at home, they may also experience the threat that COVID-19 will have a severe impact on their lives. We ran an online survey with 8,229 individuals from 79 countries in April 2020. After establishing levels of psychological well-being, we investigated which factors contribute to better psychological well-being, and which to worse. We found that levels of anxiety and depression were markedly elevated worldwide. The more people thought that COVID-19 was going to have severe effects on their lives, the more anxious and depressed they felt. This effect was even stronger when the individuals felt socially isolated, which was increased when people had been in quarantine for a long time, but reduced when people frequently communicated with their close ones. People felt more in control of their lives when they engaged in positive coping behaviors, such as reframing their situation positively, but not negative coping behaviors, such as substance use. People also felt in control when their government was dealing with the crisis well. We conclude that there are several ways in which psychological well-being can be supported, in the current pandemic but also potential future pandemics.

A group processes approach to antiscience beliefs and endorsement of “alternative facts”

The global spread of antiscience beliefs, misinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theories is posing a threat to the well-being of individuals and societies worldwide. Accordingly, research on why people increasingly doubt science and endorse “alternative facts” is flourishing. Much of this work has focused on identifying cognitive biases and individual differences. Importantly, however, the reasons that lead people to question mainstream scientific findings and share misinformation are also inherently tied to social processes that emerge out of divisive commitments to group identities and worldviews. In this special issue, we focus on the important and thus far neglected role of group processes in motivating science skepticism. The articles that feature in this special issue cover three core areas: the group-based roots of antiscience attitudes; the intergroup dynamics between science and conspiratorial thinking; and finally, insights about science denial related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across all articles, we highlight the role of worldviews, identities, norms, religion, and other inter- and intragroup processes that shape antiscientific attitudes. We hope that this collection will inspire future research endeavors that take a group processes approach to the social psychological study of science skepticism.

Science Skepticism Across 24 Countries

Efforts to understand and remedy the rejection of science are impeded by lack of insight into how it varies in degree and in kind around the world. The current work investigates science skepticism in 24 countries ( N = 5,973). Results show that while some countries stand out as generally high or low in skepticism, predictors of science skepticism are relatively similar across countries. One notable effect was consistent across countries though stronger in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) nations: General faith in science was predicted by spirituality, suggesting that it, more than religiosity, may be the ‘enemy’ of science acceptance. Climate change skepticism was mainly associated with political conservatism especially in North America. Other findings were observed across WEIRD and non-WEIRD nations: Vaccine skepticism was associated with spirituality and scientific literacy, genetic modification skepticism with scientific literacy, and evolution skepticism with religious orthodoxy. Levels of science skepticism are heterogeneous across countries, but predictors of science skepticism are heterogeneous across domains.

Science skepticism in times of COVID-19

In the current paper, we argue that to get a better understanding of the psychological antecedents of COVID-related science skepticism, it is pivotal to review what is known about the (social) psychology of science skepticism. Recent research highlighting the role of ideologies and worldviews in shaping science skepticism can inform research questions as well as pandemic responses to COVID-19. It is likely that the antecedents of general COVID-19-related skepticism substantially overlap with the antecedents of climate change skepticism. Additionally, skepticism about a potential vaccine in particular will likely be fueled by similar worries and misperceptions to those shaping more general antivaccination attitudes, of which conspiracy thinking is particularly worth highlighting. We conclude by reflecting on how the COVID-19 crisis may shape future social-psychological research aimed at understanding trust in science and science skepticism.

Spiritual skepticism? Heterogeneous science skepticism in the Netherlands

Recent work points to the heterogeneous nature of science skepticism. However, most research on science skepticism has been conducted in the United States. The current work addresses the generalizability of the knowledge acquired so far by investigating individuals from a Western European country (The Netherlands). Results indicate that various previously reported findings hold up: Mirroring North American patterns, climate change skepticism is associated with political conservatism (but only modestly), and scientific literacy does not contribute to skepticism, except about genetic modification (Study 1 only) and vaccine skepticism (Study 2 only). Results also reveal a crucial difference: Religiosity does not consistently contribute to science skepticism, except about evolution. Instead, spirituality is found to most consistently predict vaccine skepticism and low general faith in science-which in turn predicts willingness to support science. Concerns about societal impact play an additional role. These findings speak to the generalizability of previous findings, improving our understanding of science skepticism.

On Post–Apocalyptic and Doomsday Prepping Beliefs: A New Measure, Its Correlates, and the Motivation to Prep

Post–apocalyptic scenarios provide the basis for popular television shows, video games, and books. These scenarios may be popular because people have their own beliefs and visions about the apocalypse and the need to prepare. The prevalence of such beliefs might also hold societal relevance and serve as a type of projective test of personality. However, there are no quantitative accounts of post–apocalyptic or prepping beliefs. As such, we conducted seven studies ( Ntotal = 1034) to do so. In Studies 1 and 2, we developed a post–apocalyptic and prepping beliefs scale, explored its correlates, and confirmed its structure and psychometric properties. In Study 3, we attempted to activate a ‘prepper’ mindset and further explore the correlates of the new scale. In Studies 4 and 5, we investigated covariations in daily feelings, thoughts, and events, and prepping beliefs. In Studies 6a and 6b, we compared scores from ‘real’ preppers and to a non–prepping group. Overall, we found that post–apocalyptic concerns and prepping beliefs are predictive of low agreeableness and humility, paranoia, cynicism, conspiracy mentality, conservatism, and social dominance orientation. We also found that increased belief in the need to prep is associated with God–belief, negative daily experiences, and global political events. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection

Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people’s ideological worldviews. We report three studies—including an analysis of large-scale survey data—in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and genetic modification (GM). The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation.

The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality

Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively. We report ten studies (N = 2328) that investigated morality judgments of scientists and compared those with judgments of various control groups, including atheists. A persistent intuitive association between scientists and disturbing immoral conduct emerged for violations of the binding moral foundations, particularly when this pertained to violations of purity. However, there was no association in the context of the individualizing moral foundations related to fairness and care. Other evidence found that scientists were perceived as similar to others in their concerns with the individualizing moral foundations of fairness and care, yet as departing for all of the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Furthermore, participants stereotyped scientists particularly as robot-like and lacking emotions, as well as valuing knowledge over morality and being potentially dangerous. The observed intuitive immorality associations are partially due to these explicit stereotypes but do not correlate with any perceived atheism. We conclude that scientists are perceived not as inherently immoral, but as capable of immoral conduct.

Step by Step

People are motivated to maintain the belief that they live in an orderly world in which things are under control. Previous research has shown that perceptions of order can be maintained via two routes: affirming personal control over one’s life and future outcomes, and bolstering one’s belief in external systems or agents that exert control over the world. Both religion and sociopolitical institutions can provide subjective and socially sanctioned security in the context of low personal control or disorder in one’s environment. In this article, we argue that belief in science and progress could serve a similar function. Science is not only assumed to simplify people’s lives; it also creates a sense of order and predictability. We show that perceiving order (regardless of external agency) can be sufficient to combat lack of control, and that perceptions of order can be derived from science and from more general beliefs about progress. We also discuss findings from our research addressing the processes underlying these effects and the functionality of compensatory beliefs and perceptions. We conclude that endorsing scientific theories and beliefs in societal and scientific progress helps people regulate threats to order and control, as long as these theories and beliefs suggest that the world is (or will be) an orderly place.

When death is good for life: considering the positive trajectories of terror management

Research derived from terror management theory (TMT) has shown that people's efforts to manage the awareness of death often have deleterious consequences for the individual and society. The present article takes a closer look at the conceptual foundations of TMT and considers some of the more beneficial trajectories of the terror management process. The awareness of mortality can motivate people to enhance their physical health and prioritize growth-oriented goals; live up to positive standards and beliefs; build supportive relationships and encourage the development of peaceful, charitable communities; and foster open-minded and growth-oriented behaviors. The article also tentatively explores the potential enriching impact of direct encounters with death. Overall, the present analysis suggests that although death awareness can, at times, generate negative outcomes, it can also function to move people along more positive trajectories and contribute to the good life.

Weighty Matters

Previous work showed that concrete experiences of weight influence people’s judgments of how important certain issues are. In line with an embodied simulation account but contrary to a metaphor-enriched perspective, this work shows that perceived importance of an object influences perceptions of weight. Two studies manipulated information about a book’s importance, after which, participants estimated its weight. Importance information caused participants to perceive the book to be heavier. This was not merely a semantic association, because weight perceptions were affected only when participants physically held the book. Furthermore, importance information influenced weight perceptions but not perceptions of monetary value. These findings extend previous research by showing that the activation direction from weight to importance can be reversed, thus suggesting that the connection between importance and weight goes beyond metaphorical mappings. Implications for the debate on interpretation of findings on the interplay between bodily states and abstract information are discussed.

Yes We Can

The present research shows that belief in progress helps to alleviate the aversive experience of low levels of control. When control is low, believing in progress provides people with the promise of future control in a broader sense. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants lacking control disagreed more with an essay on the illusory nature of human progress. Experiment 3 corroborated these findings in a field study comparing airplane passengers with a nonairborne control group. Experiment 4 assessed belief in progress more directly and showed an increased willingness to invest in specific fields of progress-oriented research when personal control was low. Moreover, participants lacking control showed an increased preference for high-tech solutions to combat environmental problems and believed more firmly in scientific and moral progress.

The society-supporting self: System justification and cultural worldview defense as different forms of self-regulation

Justifying social systems and defending cultural worldviews may seem to resemble the same human need to protect what is known and predictable. The current paper would like to argue that these society-supporting tendencies concern two different forms of self-regulation: the need for control and the need for meaning. Results show higher levels of system justification when participants were lacking control than when they had to think about death or about a control topic. Simultaneously, participants showed stronger worldview defense reactions when they thought about their own death, compared to those experiencing low control. This suggests that system justification may be used to compensate a loss of personal control, while cultural worldviews protect the person from existential anxiety.

Things Will Get Better: The Anxiety-Buffering Qualities of Progressive Hope

Terror management theory argues that people can cope with the psychological threat of their own death by bolstering faith in their cultural worldviews. Based on the notion that—since the Age of Enlightenment—belief or faith in progress has become one of the defining qualities of modern Western thinking, we expected that this belief serves as a buffer against mortality concerns. Three experiments were conducted to test the relationship between existential anxiety and belief in progress. Results of Experiment 1 show that mortality salience increased participants' disagreement with an essay on the illusory notion of human progress. The same essay increased death-thought accessibility in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, belief in progress and mortality salience were manipulated. Results show that bolstering belief in progress buffered the effects of mortality salience on death-thought accessibility and diminished subsequent defensive reactions to a cultural worldview-threatening essay.