Measurement of public trust in sources of information about science primarily examines whether the public turns to the “science communication industry” for information about science. Research posits, however, that scientists are not the singular cultural authority on science. Here, we examine the extent to which people turn to religion and religious individuals for information about science. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of US adults, we examine what factors—when individuals have a question about science—shape respondent’s likelihood of turning to science-based versus religion-based sources. Results show that religiosity is a strong positive predictor of looking to religious sources for scientific information, but it does not deter seeking out scientific sources. The results also show that interest in science has a positive influence on the likelihood of turning to a religious source.
AbbottA (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BakerJO (2010) Science and religion in 21st century America: A sociological perspective. Unpublished Dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, TX.
3.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: SAGE.
4.
BermúdezJL (2005) Philosophy of Psychology: A Contemporary Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BesleyJCShanahanJ (2005) Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication26: 347–367.
6.
BickerstaffKLorenzoniIPidgeonNFPoortingaWSimmonsP (2008) Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste. Public Understanding of Science17: 145–169.
7.
BinderAJ (2009) Contentious Curricula: Afrocentrism and Creationism in American Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
BrewerPLeyB (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35: 115–137.
9.
BrossardDScheufeleDAKimELewensteinB (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: Examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science18: 546–558.
10.
CacciatoreMNBrowningDScheufeleDBrossardMXenosECorley (2016) Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities. Public Understanding of Science. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516661090.
11.
CallegaroMDiSograC (2008) Computing response metrics for online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly72: 1008–1032.
12.
ChanEEcklundEH (2016) Narrating and navigating authorities: Understandings of the Bible and science among evangelical and mainline Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion55: 54–69.
13.
ChangLKrosnickJA (2009) National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly73(4): 641–678.
14.
CollinsHM (2014) Are We All Scientific Experts Now. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
CollinsHMEvansR (2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science32: 235–296.
16.
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 Science17: 309–327.
17.
EcklundEH (2010) Science vs Religion: What Scientists Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
EcklundEHScheitleCP (2017) Religion vs Science: What Religious People Really Think. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
19.
EpsteinS (1996) Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
20.
EvansJH (2011) Epistemological and moral conflict between religion and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion50: 707–727.
21.
EvansJH (2014) Faith in science in global perspective: Implications for transhumanism. Public Understanding of Science23: 814–832.
22.
EvansJHEvansMS (2008) Religion and science: Beyond the epistemological conflict narrative. Annual Review of Sociology34: 87–105.
23.
FigertA (2010) White coats: The shape of scientific authority and its relationship to religion and religious authority”. In: JungPVigenA (eds) God, Science, Sex, Gender: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Christian Ethics. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 32–45.
24.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77: 167–187.
25.
GierynTF (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review48: 781–795.
26.
GierynTF (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
HmielowskiJDFeldmanLMyersTALeiserowitzAMaibachE (2014) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science23: 866–883.
28.
HoffmannJP (1998) Confidence in religious institutions and secularization: Trends and implications. Review of Religious Research39: 321–343.
29.
IyengarSHahnKS (2009) Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication59(1): 19–39.
30.
JohnsonDRPeiferJL (2017) How public confidence in higher education varies by social context. Journal of Higher Education88: 619–644.
31.
JohnsonDRScheitleCPEcklundEH (2015) Individual religiosity and orientation towards science: Reformulating relationships. Sociological Science2: 106–124.
32.
JohnsonDRScheitleCPEcklundEH (2016) Conservative Protestantism and anti-evolution curricular challenges across states. Social Science Quarterly97: 1227–1244.
33.
LatourB (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34.
LeeCJScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication29: 240–267.
35.
LongestKCSmithC (2011) Conflicting or compatible: Beliefs about religion and science among emerging adults in the United States. Sociological Forum26: 846–869.
36.
MarquesMDCritchleyCRWalsheJ (2015) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science24: 601–618.
MertonRK (1938) Science and the social order. Philosophy of Science5: 321–337.
39.
NisbetMC (2005) The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research17: 90–112.
40.
NisbetMCGoidelRK (2007) Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic—Survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science16: 421–440.
41.
NisbetMCScheufeleDASahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29: 584–608.
42.
ParsonsT (1939) The professions and social structure. Social Forces17: 457–467.
43.
ParsonsT (1962) The institutionalization of scientific investigation. In: BarberBHirschW (eds) The Sociology of Science. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, pp. 7–15.
44.
PeiferJLKhalsaSEcklundEH (2016) Political conservatism, religion, and environmental consumption in the United States. Environmental Politics25: 661–689.
ScheitleCPEcklundEH (2017) The influence of science popularizers on the public’s view of religion and science: An experimental assessment. Public Understanding of Science26: 25–39.
47.
ScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research7: 659–667.
48.
SteenslandBRobinsonLDWilcoxWBParkJZRegnerusMDWoodberryRD (2000) The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces79: 291–318.
49.
TaylorLDGhaznaviJ (2017) Media effects research. In: AllenM (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 963–968.
50.
WynneB (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: AshSSzerszynhskiBWynneB (eds) Risk Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology. London: SAGE, pp. 44–85.
51.
YearleyS (2000) Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: Two analytical approaches and a case study. Public Understanding of Science9: 105–122.
