Science can improve life around the world, but public trust in science is at risk. Understanding the presumed motives of scientists and science can inform the social psychological underpinnings of public trust in science. Across five independent datasets, perceiving the motives of science and scientists as prosocial promoted public trust in science. In Studies 1 and 2, perceptions that science was more prosocially oriented were associated with greater trust in science. Studies 3 and 4a & 4b employed experimental methods to establish that perceiving other-oriented motives, versus self-oriented motives, enhanced public trust in science. Respondents recommend greater funding allocations for science subdomains described as prosocially oriented versus power-oriented. Emphasizing the prosocial aspects of science can build stronger foundations of public trust in science.
AbeleA. E.BruckmüllerS. (2011). The bigger one of the “Big Two”? Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.028
3.
AbeleA. E.WojciszkeB. (2014). Communal and agentic content in social cognition: A dual perspective model. In OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 50, pp. 195–255). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800284-1.00004-7
4.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070159
5.
BakanD. (1966). The duality of human existence: An essay on psychology and religion. Rand Mcnally.
6.
BemS. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162.
7.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171
BrownE. R.SmithJ. L.ThomanD. B.AllenJ. M.MuragishiG. (2015). From bench to bedside: A communal utility value intervention to enhance students’ biomedical science motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 1116–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000033
10.
BrownE. R.SteinbergM.LuY.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Is the lone scientist an American dream? Perceived communal opportunities in STEM offer a pathway to closing U.S.–Asia gaps in interest and positivity. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617703173
11.
BrownE. R.ThomanD. B.SmithJ. L.DiekmanA. B. (2015). Closing the communal gap: The importance of communal affordances in science career motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 662–673.
12.
CarliL. L.AlawaL.LeeY.ZhaoB.KimE. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science: Women ≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315622645
13.
ClobertM.SaroglouV. (2015). Religion, paranormal beliefs, and distrust in science: Comparing East versus West. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 37(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341302
14.
CritchleyC. R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506070162
15.
DiekmanA. B. (2007). Negotiating the double bind: Interpersonal and instrumental evaluations of dominance. Sex Roles, 56(9–10), 551–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9198-0
16.
DiekmanA. B.BrownE. R.JohnstonA. M.ClarkE. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1051–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610377342
17.
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers: Evidence for a goal congruity perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(5), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025199
18.
DiekmanA. B.JoshiM. P.Benson-GreenwaldT. M. (2020). Goal congruity theory: Navigating the social structure to fulfill goals. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 189–244). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.04.003
EaglyA. H.KoenigA. M. (2021). The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211013775
21.
EaglyA. H.MladinicA. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167289154008
22.
EaglyA. H.NaterC.MillerD. I.KaufmannM.SczesnyS. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494
23.
EisingaR.GrotenhuisM. tePelzerB. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown?International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3
24.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
25.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
26.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
27.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
28.
FolbergA. M.KercherK.RyanC. S. (2020). The hidden role of dominance in career interests: A bifactor analysis of agentic and communal goal orientations. Sex Roles, 83, 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01104-1
29.
FrimerJ. A.AquinoK.GebauerJ. E.ZhuL. (Lei)OakesH. (2015). A decline in prosocial language helps explain public disapproval of the US Congress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(21), 6591–6594. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500355112
30.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.BautistaN. (2021). Integrating communal content into science lessons: An investigation of the beliefs and attitudes of preservice teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 121(3), 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12457
31.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.HudiburghL. (2017). From classroom to career: The unique role of communal processes in predicting interest in STEM careers. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9398-6
32.
GauchatG. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225
33.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how: Mini meta-analysis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
34.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
HolmesJ. G.RempelJ. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In HendrickC. (Ed.), Close relationships: Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 95–112). Sage Publications.
37.
HowellD. C. (2009). Resampling and nonparametric approaches to data. In PotterJ. (Ed.), Statistical methods for psychology (7th ed., pp. 659–689). Wadsworth Publishing.
38.
ImhoffR.KochA. (2017). How orthogonal are the big two of social perception? On the curvilinear relation between agency and communion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616657334
39.
JohnO. P.Benet-MartínezV. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validity, and scale construction. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (1st ed., pp. 339–369). Cambridge University Press.
40.
JuddC. M.James-HawkinsL.YzerbytV.KashimaY. (2005). Fundamental dimensions of social judgment: Understanding the relations between judgments of competence and warmth. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 899–913. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.899
41.
KahanD. M.PetersE.WittlinM.SlovicP.OuelletteL. L.BramanD.MandelG. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547
42.
KhatanaS. A. M.GroeneveldP. W. (2020). Health disparities and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the USA. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(8), 2431–2432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05916-w
KramerR. M.TylerT. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. SAGE.
45.
LockeK. D. (2000). Circumplex scales of interpersonal values: Reliability, validity, and applicability to interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 75(2), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7502_6
46.
LuhmannN. (1979). Trust and power. John Wiley and Sons.
47.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
48.
MurphyM. C.ReevesS. L. (2019). Personal and organizational mindsets at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 39, Article 100121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100121
49.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
50.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(32), 11087–11092. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0805664105
RadkiewiczP.SkarżyńskaK.HamerK. (2013). The influence of the big two: The perception of people in relation to negativistic beliefs about the social world. Social Psychology, 44(2), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000146
53.
RajagopalanR. M.NelsonA.FujimuraJ. H. (2017). Race and science in the twenty-first century. In MillerC.UllrikeF. (Eds.), Handbook of science technology studies (pp. 349–378). MIT Press/4S.
54.
RempelJ. K.HolmesJ. G.ZannaM. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
55.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x
56.
RutjensB. T.HeineS. J. (2016). The immoral landscape? Scientists are associated with violations of morality. PLOS ONE, 11(4), Article e0152798. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152798
57.
RutjensB. T.HeineS. J.SuttonR. M.van HarreveldF. (2018). Attitudes towards science. In OlsonJ. M. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 57, pp. 125–165). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2017.08.001
58.
RutjensB. T.SuttonR. M.van der LeeR. (2018). Not all skepticism is equal: Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(3), 384–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741314
59.
SchwartzS. H.BilskyW. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550
60.
Shockley-ZalabakP.EllisK.WinogradG. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal; Chesterland, 18(4), 35–48.
61.
SklootR. (2010). The immortal life of henrietta lacks. Crown Publishing Group.
SmithT. W.DavernM.FreeseJ.MorganS. L. (2019). General social surveys, 1972-2018: Cumulative codebook (No. 25; National Data Program for the Social Sciences Series, p. 3758). NORC.
64.
SteinbergM.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Considering “why” to engage in STEM activities elevates communal content of STEM affordances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.010
65.
TrapnellP. D.PaulhusD. L. (2012). Agentic and communal values: Their scope and measurement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627968
TurnerN. E. (1998). The effect of common variance and structure pattern on random data eigenvalues: Implications for the accuracy of parallel analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(4), 541–568.
68.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(3), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.3.395
69.
WojciszkeB.AbeleA. E.BarylaW. (2009). Two dimensions of interpersonal attitudes: Liking depends on communion, respect depends on agency. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(6), 973–990. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.595
70.
ZaheerA.McEvilyB.PerroneV. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
