Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the factors that predict trust/distrust in science. However, most of these studies are based on closed-ended survey research, which does not allow researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. This study integrated survey analysis conducted within the United States with computational text analysis to reveal factors previously obscured by traditional survey methodologies. Even after controlling for political ideology—which has been the most significant explanatory factor in determining trust in science within a survey framework—we found those with concerns over boundary-crossing (i.e. concerns or perceptions that science overlaps with politics, the government, and funding) were less likely to trust science than their counterparts.
AhmedSTanHW (2022) Personality and perspicacity: Role of personality traits and cognitive ability in political misinformation discernment and sharing behavior. Personality and Individual Differences196: 111747.
2.
AlexanderJ (1989) Culture and political crisis: “Watergate” and Durkheimian sociology. In: AlexanderJC (ed.) Structure and Meaning: Relinking Classical Sociology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 174–216.
3.
AtirSRosenzweigEDunningD (2015) When knowledge knows no bounds: Self-perceived expertise predicts claims of impossible knowledge. Psychological Science26(8): 1295–1303.
4.
BesleyJCO’HaraKDudoA (2019) Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLoS One14(10): e0224039.
5.
BesleyJCTiffanyLA (2023) What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure?Public Understanding of Science32(6): 709–726.
6.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35(1): 115–137.
ChungMMoonWKJones-JangSM (2023) AI as an apolitical referee: Using alternative sources to decrease partisan biases in the processing of fact-checking messages. Digital Journalism. Epub ahead of print 14 September. DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2254820.
9.
DesmondH (2022) Status distrust of scientific experts. Social Epistemology36(5): 586–600.
10.
DouglasPM (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
EvansJHFengJ (2013) Conservative protestantism and skepticism of scientists studying climate change. Climatic Change121: 595–608.
12.
FairbrotherMSeväIJKulinJ (2019) Political trust and the relationship between climate change beliefs and support for fossil fuel taxes: Evidence from a survey of 23 European countries. Global Environmental Change59: 102003.
13.
FischhoffB (2013) The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences110(Suppl. 3): 14033–14039.
14.
FriedmanJHastieTTibshiraniR (2010) Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. Journal of Statistical Software33(1): 1–22.
15.
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.
16.
GauchatG (2015) The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces94(2): 723–746.
17.
GierynTF (2022) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
18.
HamptonJA (1995) Testing the prototype theory of concepts. Journal of Memory and Language34(5): 686–708.
19.
HanssonIBurattiSAllwoodCM (2017) Experts’ and novices’ perception of ignorance and knowledge in different research disciplines and its relation to belief in certainty of knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology8: 377.
20.
HardyBWTallapragadaM (2021) The moderating role of interest in politics and news consumption in the relationship between political ideology and beliefs about science and scientists in the United States. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations24(5): 783–796.
21.
HendriksFBrommeR (2022) Researchers’ public engagement in the context of interdisciplinary research programs: Learning and reflection from boundary crossing. Science Communication44(6): 693–718.
22.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2016) Trust in science and the science of trust. In: BlöbaumB (ed.) Trust and Communication in a Digitized World. Cham: Springer, pp. 123–145.
23.
HmielowskiJDFeldmanLMyersTALeiserowitzAMaibachE (2014) An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science23(7): 866–883.
24.
HoggMATerryDI (2000) Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review25(1): 121–140.
25.
HopfHKriefAMehtaGMatlinSA (2019) Fake science and the knowledge crisis: Ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society Open Science6(5): 190161.
26.
HornseyMJHarrisEABainPGFieldingKS (2016) Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change6(6): 622–626.
27.
HuberBBarnidgeMGildeZúñigaHLiuJ (2019) Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 759–777.
28.
HuberRAGreussingEEberlJM (2022) From populism to climate scepticism: The role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics31(7): 1115–1138.
29.
HutchersonCASharpinskyiKVarnumMERotellaAWormleyASTayL, et al. (2023) On the accuracy, media representation, and public perception of psychological scientists’ judgments of societal change. American Psychologist78(8): 968–981.
30.
JenningsWStokerGValgarðssonVDevineDGaskellJ (2021) How trust, mistrust and distrust shape the governance of the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of European Public Policy28(8): 1174–1196.
31.
Jones-JangSMHartPSFeldmanLMoonWK (2020) Diversifying or reinforcing science communication? Examining the flow of frame contagion across media platforms. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97(1): 98–117.
32.
KozlowskiAC (2022) How conservatives lost confidence in science: The role of ideological alignment in political polarization. Social Forces100(3): 1415–1443.
33.
KrauseNMBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMAFrankeK (2019) Trends—Americans’ trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly83(4): 817–836.
34.
LamontM (2000) Meaning-making in cultural sociology: Broadening our agenda. Contemporary Sociology29(4): 602–607.
35.
LamontMMolnárV (2002) The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology28(1): 167–195.
36.
LeeEWHoSS (2015) The perceived familiarity gap hypothesis: Examining how media attention and reflective integration relate to perceived familiarity with nanotechnology in Singapore. Journal of Nanoparticle Research17: 228.
37.
LeeS (2020) Probing the mechanisms through which social media erodes political knowledge: The role of the news-finds-me perception. Mass Communication and Society23(6): 810–832.
38.
LeeSJones-JangSMChungMLeeEWDiehlT (2023a) Examining the role of distrust in science and social media use: Effects on susceptibility to COVID misperceptions with panel data. Mass Communication and Society. Epub ahead of print 16 November. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2023.2268053.
39.
LeeSTandocECJrLeeEW (2023b) Social media may hinder learning about science; social media’s role in learning about COVID-19. Computers in Human Behavior138: 107487.
40.
LewandowskySOberauerK (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science25(4): 217–222.
41.
McClainCR (2017) Practices and promises of Facebook for science outreach: Becoming a “Nerd of Trust.”PLoS Biology15(6): e2002020.
42.
MannMSchleiferC (2020) Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces99(1): 305–332.
43.
MartinCMacDonaldBH (2020) Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLoS One15(11): e0241972.
44.
MayT (2020) Anti-vaxxers, politicization of science, and the need for trust in pandemic response. Journal of Health Communication25(10): 761–763.
45.
MerkleyE (2020) Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly84(1): 24–48.
46.
MoonWKKahlorLA (2022) Nanoscientists’ perceptions of serving as ethical leaders within their organization: Implications from ethical leadership for responsible innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation9(1): 74–92.
47.
MoonWKAtkinsonLKahlorLAYunCSonH (2022) US political partisanship and COVID-19: Risk information seeking and prevention behaviors. Health Communication37(13): 1671–1681.
48.
MooreK (2008) Disrupting Science: Social Movements, American Scientists, and the Politics of the Military, 1945–1975. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
MyersTAKotcherJStenhouseNAndersonAAMaibachEBeallL, et al. (2017) Predictors of trust in the general science and climate science research of US federal agencies. Public Understanding of Science26(7): 843–860.
50.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (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 Science658(1): 36–66.
51.
NisbetMCScheufeleDAShanahanJMoyPBrossardDLewensteinBV (2002) Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research29(5): 584–608.
52.
PecharEBernauerTMayerF (2018) Beyond political ideology: The impact of attitudes towards government and corporations on trust in science. Science Communication40(3): 291–313.
PriestSHBonfadelliHRusanenM (2003) The “trust gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis: An International Journal23(4): 751–766.
56.
PutnamR (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
57.
RiccardiP (2023) How to restore trust in science through education. Nature Physics19: 146–147.
58.
RumelhartDEAbrahamsonAA (1973) A model for analogical reasoning. Cognitive Psychology5(1): 1–28.
59.
ScheufeleDA (2014) Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(4): 13585–13592.
60.
ScottJB (2016) Boundary work and the construction of scientific authority in the vaccines-autism controversy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication46(1): 59–82.
61.
SimisMJMaddenHCacciatoreMAYeoSK (2016) The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science25(4): 400–414.
62.
StrömbäckJDjerf-PierreMShehataA (2013) The dynamics of political interest and news media consumption: A longitudinal perspective. International Journal of Public Opinion Research25(4): 414–435.
63.
SturgisPBrunton-SmithIJacksonJ (2021) Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence. Nature Human Behaviour5(11): 1528–1534.
64.
TurnerJCBrownRJTajfelH (1979) Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology9(2): 187–204.
65.
Van DijckJAlinejadD (2020) Social media and trust in scientific expertise: Debating the Covid-19 pandemic in the Netherlands. Social Media+ Society6(4): 1–11.
66.
WieglebVBrunsA (2023) Working the boundary: Science–policy interactions and uneven knowledge politics in IPBES. Sustainability Science18(3): 1069–1084.
67.
WijffelsJStrakaMStrakovJ (2019) Udpipe: Tokenization, parts of speech tagging, lemmatization and dependency parsing with the UDPipe NLP toolkit. Available at: https://rdrr.io/cran/udpipe/
68.
WilholtT (2013) Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science64(2): 233–253.
69.
WinterTRiordanBCScarfDJosePE (2022) Conspiracy beliefs and distrust of science predicts reluctance of vaccine uptake of politically right-wing citizens. Vaccine40(12): 1896–1903.
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.
