Substantial minorities of the population report a low degree of trust in science, or endorse conspiracy theories that violate basic scientific knowledge. This might indicate a wholesale rejection of science. In four studies, we asked 782 US participants questions about trust in science, conspiracy beliefs, and basic science (e.g. the relative size of electrons and atoms). Participants were provided with the scientifically consensual answer to the basic science questions, and asked whether they accept it. Acceptance of the scientific consensus was very high in the sample as a whole (95.1%), but also in every sub-sample (e.g. no trust in science: 87.3%; complete endorsement of flat Earth theory: 87.2%). This quasi-universal acceptance of basic science suggests that people are motivated to reject specific scientific beliefs, and not science as a whole. This could be leveraged in science communication.
AlganYCohenDDavoineEFoucaultMStantchevaS (2021) Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America118(40): e2108576118.
2.
AllumNSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17(1): 35–54.
3.
AltaySNeraKEjazWSchöpferCTomasF (2023) Conspiracy believers claim to be free thinkers but (Under)Use advice like everyone else. British Journal of Social Psychology62(4): 1782–1797.
4.
AltenmüllerMSWingenTSchulteA (2024) Explaining polarized trust in scientists: A political stereotype-approach. Science Communication46(1): 92–115.
5.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
6.
BesleyJCLeeNMPressgroveG (2021) Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication43(1): 3–32.
7.
BlanckeSVan BreusegemFDe JaegerGBraeckmanJVan MontaguM (2015) Fatal attraction: The intuitive appeal of GMO opposition. Trends in Plant Science20(7): 414–418.
BruderMHaffkePNeaveNNouripanahNImhoffR (2013) Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology4: 225. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
10.
ColognaVSiegristM (2020) The role of trust for climate change mitigation and adaptation behaviour: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology69: 101428.
11.
ColognaVMedeNGBergerSBesleyJBrickCJoubertM, et al. (2025) Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour9: 713–730.
12.
DouglasKMUscinskiJESuttonRMCichockaANefesTAngCS, et al. (2019) Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology40(S1): 3–35.
13.
DurantJREvansGAThomasGP (1989) The public understanding of science. Nature340(6228): 11–14.
14.
EganPJMullinM (2017) Climate change: US public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science20: 209–227.
15.
FernbachPMLightNScottSEInbarYRozinP (2019) Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most. Nature Human Behaviour3(3): 251–256.
GauchatG (2011) The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science20(6): 751–770.
20.
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.
21.
GauchatGAndrewsKT (2018) The cultural-cognitive mapping of scientific professions. American Sociological Review83(3): 567–595.
22.
GligorićVKleefGAvan RutjensBT (2024) How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists. PLoS ONE19(4): e0299621.
23.
HacquinA-SAltaySAarøeLMercierH (2021) Disgust sensitivity and public opinion on nuclear energy. Journal of Environmental Psychology80: 101749.
24.
HarrisKR (2023) Conspiracy theories, populism, and epistemic autonomy. Journal of the American Philosophical Association9(1): 21–36.
25.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE10(10): e0139309.
26.
HornseyMJ (2020) Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science29(6): 583–591.
27.
HornseyMJFieldingKS (2017) Attitude roots and Jiu Jitsu persuasion: Understanding and overcoming the motivated rejection of science. American Psychologist72(5): 459–473.
28.
HornseyMJHarrisEAFieldingKS (2018a) Relationships among conspiratorial beliefs, conservatism and climate scepticism across nations. Nature Climate Change8(7): 614–620.
29.
HornseyMJHarrisEAFieldingKS (2018b) The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology37(4): 307–315.
30.
IntemannK (2023) Science communication and public trust in science. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews48(2): 350–365.
31.
JabkowskiPDomaradzkiJBaranowskiM (2023) Exploring COVID-19 conspiracy theories: Education, religiosity, trust in scientists, and political orientation in 26 European countries. Scientific Reports13(1): 18116.
32.
KrauseNMBrossardDScheufeleDAXenosMAFrankeK (2019) Trendsamericans’ trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Quarterly83(4): 817–836.
33.
LantianAMullerDNurraCDouglasKM (2016) Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: Validation of a French and English Single-Item Scale. International Review of Social Psychology29(1): 1.
34.
LewandowskySOberauerK (2016) Motivated rejection of science. Current Directions in Psychological Science25(4): 217–222.
35.
LewandowskySGignacGEOberauerK (2013) The role of conspiracist ideation and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE8(10): e75637.
36.
LiNQianY (2022) Polarization of public trust in scientists between 1978 and 2018: Insights from a cross-decade comparison using interpretable machine learning. Politics and the Life Sciences41(1): 45–54.
37.
LindholtMFJørgensenFBorAPetersenMB (2021) Public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines: Cross-national evidence on levels and individual-level predictors using observational data. BMJ Open11(6): e048172.
38.
LittrellSDiekmanASeeligMPremaratneKWuchtySVerdearD, et al. (2025) Belief in science-related conspiracy theories. Journal of Social Issues81(1): e70004.
39.
MayerRCDavisJHSchoormanFD (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review20(3): 709.
40.
MedeNG (2023) Science-related populism: Conceptualization, empirical investigation, and implications for science communication (dissertation summary). Studies in Communication Sciences23(3): 383–390.
41.
MedeNGSchäferMS (2020) Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science29(5): 473–491.
42.
MedeNGSchäferMSMetagJKlingerK (2022) Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLoS ONE17(8): e0271204.
43.
MillerJD (1998) The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science7(3): 203–223.
44.
MitonHMercierH (2015) Cognitive obstacles to pro-vaccination beliefs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences19(11): 633–636.
45.
MunroGD (2010) The scientific impotence excuse: Discounting belief-threatening scientific abstracts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology40(3): 579–600.
46.
NadelsonLSHardyKK (2015) Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach8(1): 9.
47.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences (ed SnowCEDibnerKA). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.17226/23595
48.
NoySO’BrienTL (2019) Science for good? The effects of education and national context on perceptions of science. Public Understanding of Science28(8): 897–916.
49.
PennycookGBinnendykJRandD (2025) Overconfidently conspiratorial: Conspiracy believers are dispositionally overconfident and massively overestimate how much others agree with them. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Epub ahead of print 24 May 2025. DOI: 10.1177/01461672251338358.
50.
PeresmanALarsenLTMazepusHPetersenMB (2025) Do populists listen to expertise? A five-country study of authority, arguments, and expert sources. Political Studies. Epub ahead of print 15 March 2025. DOI: 10.1177/00323217251323402.
51.
PummererLFockLWinterKSassenbergK (2024) Conspiracy beliefs and majority influence. The Journal of Social Psychology. Epub ahead of print 12 September 2024. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2024.2397491
52.
RanneyMAClarkD (2016) Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science8(1): 49–75.
53.
RousseauDMSitkinSBBurtRSCamererC (1998) Introduction to special topic forum: Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review23(3): 393–404. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259285
54.
RutjensBTVećkalovB (2022) Conspiracy beliefs and science rejection. Current Opinion in Psychology46: 101392.
55.
SalmonDADudleyMZGlanzJMOmerSB (2015) Vaccine hesitancy: Causes, consequences, and a call to action. Vaccine33: D66–D71.
56.
StockemerDBordeleauJ-N (2024) Understanding climate change conspiracy beliefs: A comparative outlook. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review5(6): 1–12.
57.
SturgisPBrunton-SmithIJacksonJ (2021) Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence. Nature Human Behaviour5(11): 1528–1534.
58.
UscinskiJEndersAKlofstadCSeeligMDrochonHPremaratneK, et al. (2022) Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time?PLoS ONE17(7): e0270429.
59.
Van StekelenburgASchaapGVelingHVan’TRietJBuijzenM (2022) Scientific-consensus communication about contested science: A preregistered meta-analysis. Psychological Science33(12): 1989–2008.
60.
VećkalovBGeigerSJBartošFWhiteMPRutjensBTHarreveldF, et al. (2024) A 27-country test of communicating the scientific consensus on climate change. Nature Human Behaviour8: 1892–1905.
61.
VranicAHromatkoITonkovićM (2022) “I did my own research”: Overconfidence, (dis)trust in science, and endorsement of conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology13: 931865.
WilholtT (2013) Epistemic trust in science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science64(2): 233–253.
66.
WintterlinFHendriksFMedeNGBrommeRMetagJSchäferMS (2022) Predicting public trust in science: The role of basic orientations toward science, perceived trustworthiness of scientists, and experiences with science. Frontiers in Communication6: 822757.
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.
