In this article, we focus on a key strategic objective of scientific organizations: maintaining the trust of the public. Using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults (n = 1510), we assess the extent to which demographic factors and political ideology are associated with citizens’ trust in general science and climate science research conducted by US federal agencies. Finally, we test whether priming individuals to first consider agencies’ general science research influences trust in their climate science research, and vice versa. We found that federal agencies’ general science research is more trusted than their climate science research—although a large minority of respondents did not have an opinion—and that political ideology has a strong influence on public trust in federal scientific research. We also found that priming participants to consider general scientific research does not increase trust in climate scientific research. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
AndersonAAScheufeleDABrossardDCorleyEA (2012) The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(2): 225–237.
2.
ArataM (2007) PR for the physics of matter: Tops … and flops. In: BauerMWBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 159–172.
3.
BarghJA (2006) What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology36: 147–168.
4.
BesleyJ (2014) Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In: National Science Board (ed.) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01), pp. 1–53.
5.
BickerstaffKLorenzoniIPidgeonNFPoortingaWSimmonsP (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation, and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science17: 145–169.
6.
BodmerW (1985) The Public Understanding of Science. London: Royal Society.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2012) Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment. Public Understanding of Science35(1): 115–137. DOI: 10.1177/1075547012441691.
9.
CarlisleJEFeezellJTMichaudKESmithERSmithL (2010) The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Public Understanding of Science19(5): 514–527.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science73: 309–327.
12.
DingDMaibachEZhaoXRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change1: 462–466.
13.
DunlapREMcCrightAM (2008) A widening gap: Republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment50: 26–35.
14.
EarleTC (2010) Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis30(4): 541–574.
15.
FeldmanLMaibachEWRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2012) Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics17(1): 3–31.
16.
FiskeSTTaylorSE (1991) Social Cognition, 2nd edn.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
17.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
18.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77(2): 167–187.
19.
GuptaNFischerARHFrewerLJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review. Public Understanding of Science21(7): 782–795.
20.
HaerlinBParrD (1999) How to restore public trust in science. Nature400: 499.
21.
HamiltonLCHartterJSaitoK (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open5: 1–13.
22.
HawthorneGElliottP (2005) Imputing cross-sectional missing data: Comparison of common techniques. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry39(7): 583–590.
23.
HellmuellerLTrillingD (2012) The credibility of credibility measures: A meta-analysis in leading communication journals, 1951 to 2011. Paper Presented at the World Association for Public Opinion Research 65th Annual Conference, Hong Kong, 14–16 June. Available at: http://wapor2012.hkpop.hk/doc/papers/ConcurrentSessionsV/VD/VD-3.pdf
24.
HochschildJCrabillASenM (2012) Political and policy implications of technology optimism about genomic science. SSRN scholarly paper no. ID 2108206. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network (SSRN). Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2108206
25.
IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.
26.
KahanDMJenkins-SmithHBramanD (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research14(2): 147–174.
27.
KaspersonREGoldingDTulerS (1992) Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of Social Issues48(4): 161–187.
28.
KimHFordingRC (1998) Voter ideology in western democracies, 1946–1989. European Journal of Political Research33: 73–97.
29.
KrosnickJA (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology50(1): 537–567.
LeiserowitzAMaibachERoser-RenoufCSmithNHmielowskiJD (2011) Climate change in the American Mind: November 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateBeliefsNovember2011.pdf
32.
MalkaAKrosnickJALangerG (2009) The association of knowledge with concern about global warming: Trusted information sources shape public thinking. Risk Analysis29: 633–647.
33.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2010) Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture & Society27: 100–133.
34.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly52(2): 155–194.
35.
McCroskeyJCTevenJJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs66(1): 90–103.
36.
MalkaALelkesY (2010) More than ideology: Conservative-Liberal identity and receptivity to political cues. Social Justice Research23: 156–188.
37.
MillerS (2001) Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science10: 115–120.
38.
MillstoneEVan ZwanenbergP (2000) A crisis of trust: For science, scientists, or for institutions?Nature Medicine6(12): 1307–1308.
39.
MooneyC (2005) The Republican War on Science. New York, NY: Basic Books.
40.
MyersTA (2011) Goodbye listwise deletion: Presenting hotdeck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures5: 297–310.
41.
MyersTANisbetMCMaibachEWLeiserowitzAA (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A letter. Climatic Change113: 1105–1112.
42.
NisbetECooperKGarretRK (2015) The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658: 36–296.
43.
NisbetMC (2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development51(2): 12–23.
44.
NisbetMCMyersT (2007) Twenty years of public opinion about global warming. Public Opinion Quarterly71: 444–470.
45.
Pew Research Center (2013) Trust in Government Nears Record Lows, But Most Federal Agencies Are Viewed Favorably: 62% Have Positive View of Federal Workers. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
46.
PoortingaWPidgeonNF (2003) Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis23(5): 961–972.
47.
RennOLevineD (1991) Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: KaspersonREStallenPJM (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives, vol. 4. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science + Business Media BV, pp. 175–218.
48.
Roskos-EwoldsenDRKlingerMRRoskos-EwoldsenB (2007) Media priming. In: PriessRWGayleBMBurrellNAllenMBryantJ (eds) Mass Media Effects Research: Advances through Meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 53–80.
49.
Roskos-EwoldsenDRRoskos-EwoldsenBDillman CarpentierF (2008) Media priming: An updated synthesis. In: BryantJOliverMB (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd edn.New York: Routledge, pp. 74–93.
50.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRSCamererC (1998) Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404.
51.
SherkatDEEllisonCG (2007) Structuring the religion-environment connection: Identifying religious influences on environmental concern and activism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion46(1): 71–85.
52.
Sleeth-KepplerDPerkowitzRSpeiserM (2015) It’s a matter of trust: American judgments of the credibility of informal communicators on solutions to climate change. Environmental Communication11(1): 17–40. DOI: 10.1080/17524032.2015.1062790.
53.
ThomasGDurantJ (1987) Why should we promote the public understanding of science?Scientific Literacy Papers1: 1–14.
54.
UslanerEM (2001) Is Washington really the problem? In: HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (eds) What Is It About Government That Americans Dislike. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 118–133.
55.
WallsJPidgeonNWeymanAHorlick-JonesT (2004) Critical trust: Understanding lay perceptions of health and safety risk regulation. Health, Risk & Society6: 133–150.
56.
WardB (2007) The Royal Society and the debate on climate change. In: BauerMWBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 159–172.
