Scientists’ credibility varies with audience and perceived intentions

Scientists’ credibility is not just about expertise—it heavily depends on public perceptions of their underlying motivations, a groundbreaking study from Virginia Tech reveals. This insight challenges traditional assumptions about scientific communication, emphasizing that trust hinges on the belief that scientists act to serve the public good.

In a novel survey-based experiment, researchers Dara Wald, associate professor, and Shumaila Bhatti, postdoctoral fellow, both from Virginia Tech’s School of Public and International Affairs, categorized the American public into five distinct groups according to how they perceive scientists’ credibility: enthusiasts, optimists, moderates, skeptics, and estranged. These groups differ significantly not only in how much they trust scientists but also in their support for science-driven environmental and health policies, as well as their political and demographic profiles.

The study highlights a critical communication gap: while scientists often rely on their expertise and factual knowledge to convey credibility, the public’s trust is more strongly influenced by perceived intentions and whether scientists are seen as genuinely pursuing the common good. “Science communication traditionally focuses on competence and research findings, but the public also demands transparency about the purposes and values guiding the science,” said Bhatti.

To probe these dynamics, the researchers exposed participants to articles covering both a non-controversial issue (salmonella) and a politically charged topic (heatwaves) and assessed how perceived credibility shifted across contexts. Results showed substantial variation: for example, moderates were contextually engaged, showing support in some cases but skepticism in others, while skeptics and the estranged groups consistently distrusted scientific motives and institutions.

Such divisions are not inconsequential. Wald explains, “For urgent threats like flood warnings, public trust in the motivations behind scientific advice is vital. Without trust, people may ignore warnings meant to protect lives and property—regardless of the scientific accuracy.” The findings suggest that addressing these motivational perceptions could improve public engagement with science, fostering more effective policy support and health behaviors.

The researchers call for scientists to broaden their communication strategies beyond explaining the “what” of their research to also communicating the “why”—the ethical commitments and intentions that drive their work. This nuanced approach may help bridge the disconnect and create more inclusive science communication that resonates with diverse audiences.

In sum, this pioneering work deconstructs the monolithic view of “the public” and underscores the importance of addressing motivational credibility as a cornerstone of building public trust in science. It opens the door to more tailored communication strategies that meet the public’s expectations, potentially transforming how science interfaces with society.

Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, supporting the project’s focus on refining our understanding of public trust in scientific institutions.