This study examines six types of science, health, and medical sources, focusing on public perceptions of each source’s gender, credibility, benevolence, and political affiliation. Results reveal that medical doctors were rated highest in credibility and benevolence. All of the expert sources were more likely to be reported as male, reflecting persistent stereotypes. Public health experts and academic scientists were perceived as more liberal, whereas medical doctors and industry scientists did not have perceived political affiliations. Across all sources, perceptions of political partisanship corresponded with lower credibility perceptions. Implications for science and health communication research and practice are considered.
AltenmüllerMSWingenTSchulteA (2024) Explaining polarized trust in scientists: A political stereotype-approach. Science Communication46(1): 92–115.
2.
BanchefskySWestfallJParkBJuddCM (2016) But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles75: 95–109.
3.
BesleyJCMcCrightAMZahryNRElliottKCKaminskiNEMartinJD (2017) Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLOS ONE12(4): e0175643.
4.
BighamAMeyersCLiNIrlbeckE (2019) The effect of emphasizing credibility elements and the role of source gender on perceptions of source credibility. Journal of Applied Communications103(2): 3.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35(1): 115–137.
7.
CairneyPWellsteadA (2021) COVID-19: Effective policymaking depends on trust in experts, politicians, and the public. Policy Design and Practice4(1): 1–14.
8.
CarliLLAlawaLLeeYZhaoBKimE (2016) Stereotypes about gender and science: Women≠ scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly40(2): 244–260.
9.
ChandraSMohammadnezhadMWardP (2018) Trust and communication in a doctor-patient relationship: A literature review. Journal of Healthcare Communications3(36): 1–6.
10.
ChenLVasudevGSzetoACheungW (2018) Trust in doctors and non-doctor sources for health and medical information. Journal of Clinical Oncology36(15): 10086.
11.
ChinnSWeeksBE (2021) Effects of competing statistical and testimonial evidence in debates about science. Environmental Communication15(3): 353–368.
12.
ChinnSHasellARodenJZichettellaB (2024) Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat. Public Understanding of Science33(1): 88–104.
13.
CloudD (2020) The corrupted scientist archetype and its implications for climate change communication and public perceptions of science. Environmental Communication14(6): 816–829.
14.
DesikanAMacKinneyTKalmanCCarterJMReedGGoldmanGT (2023) An equity and environmental justice assessment of anti-science actions during the Trump administration. Journal of Public Health Policy44(1): 147–162.
15.
DommettKPearceW (2019) What do we know about public attitudes towards experts? Reviewing survey data in the United Kingdom and European Union. Public Understanding of Science28(6): 669–678.
16.
DruckmanJN (2022) Threats to science: Politicization, misinformation, and inequalities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science700(1): 8–24.
17.
EatonAASaundersJFJacobsonRKWestK (2020) How gender and race stereotypes impact the advancement of scholars in STEM: Professors’ biased evaluations of physics and biology post-doctoral candidates. Sex Roles82: 127–141.
18.
Greve-PoulsenKLarsenFKPedersenRTAlbækE (2023) No gender bias in audience perceptions of male and female experts in the news: Equally competent and persuasive. The International Journal of Press/politics28(1): 116–137.
19.
HamiltonLCHartterJSaitoK (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open5(3): 2158244015602752.
20.
HendriksFKienhuesDBrommeR (2015) Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLOS ONE10(10): e0139309.
21.
HofstadterR (1963) Anti-intellectualism in American Life. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
22.
HubnerAYBullockOM (2024) Why science should have a female face: Female experts increase liking, competence, and trust in science. Science Communication. Epub ahead of print 12 November. DOI: 10.1177/10755470241295676.
23.
JarreauPBCancellareIACarmichaelBJPorterLTokerDYammineSZ (2019) Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE14(5): e0216625.
24.
KaurovAAColognaVTysonCOreskesN (2022) Trends in American scientists’ political donations and implications for trust in science. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9: 368.
25.
KimNSkurkaCMaddenS (2024) The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist’s credibility and likability on social media. Public Understanding of Science33(6): 692–708.
KowittSDSchmidtAMHannanAGoldsteinAO (2017) Awareness and trust of the FDA and CDC: Results from a national sample of US adults and adolescents. PLOS ONE12(5): e0177546.
28.
LangbertMStevensS (2021) Partisan registration of faculty in flagship colleges. Studies in Higher Education47(8): 1750–1760.
29.
LatkinCADaytonLYiGKonstantopoulosABoodramB (2021) Trust in a COVID-19 vaccine in the US: A social-ecological perspective. Social Science & Medicine270: 113684.
30.
MacNellLDriscollAHuntAN (2015) What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of teaching. Innovative Higher Education40(4): 291–303.
31.
MeadMMetrauxR (1957) Image of the scientist among high-school students: A pilot study. Science126(3270): 384–390.
32.
MengelFSauermannJZölitzU (2019) Gender bias in teaching evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association17(2): 535–566.
33.
MiheljSKondorKŠtětkaV (2022) Establishing trust in experts during a crisis: Expert trustworthiness and media use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Communication44(3): 292–319.
34.
MukkerDILauerJETanenbaumCBurrL (2024) The development of children’s gender stereotypes about STEM and verbal abilities: A preregistered meta-analytic review of 98 studies. Psychological Bulletin150(12): 1363–1396.
35.
MottaM (2018a) The polarizing effect of the March for Science on attitudes toward scientists. PS: Political Science & Politics51(4): 782–788.
36.
MottaM (2018b) The dynamics and political implications of anti-intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research46(3): 465–498.
37.
MottaMCallaghanTLunz TrujilloK (2023) “The CDC won’t let me be”: The opinion dynamics of support for CDC regulatory authority. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law48(6): 829–857.
38.
O’SheaBAUedaM (2021) Who is more likely to ignore experts’ advice related to COVID-19?Preventive Medicine Reports23: 101470.
39.
ParkerK (2019) The Growing Partisan Divide in Views of Higher Education. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
40.
ReardonSPhillipsNAbbottACasassusBCallawayEWitzeA, et al. (2017) What happened at March for Science events around the world. Nature544(7651): 404–405.
41.
RigneyD (1991) Three kinds of anti-intellectualism: Rethinking Hofstadter. Sociological Inquiry61(4): 434–451.
42.
RossLGreenDHouseP (1977) The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology13(3): 279–301.
SheeranPWrightCEAvishaiAVillegasMERothmanAJKleinWM (2021) Does increasing autonomous motivation or perceived competence lead to health behavior change? A meta-analysis. Health Psychology40(10): 706.
46.
SonmezBMakarovsKAllumN (2023) Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics. PLOS ONE18(7): e0287572.
StephensTSpevakRRogalinCLHirshfieldLE (2016) Drawing doctors vs. nurses: Gendered perceptions of health professionals. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences19(1): 6.
49.
SuldovskyBLandrumAStroudNJ (2019) Public perceptions of who counts as a scientist for controversial science. Public Understanding of Science28(7): 797–811.
50.
VragaEMyersTKotcherJBeallLMaibachE (2018) Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists’ political orientations and credibility. Royal Society of Open Science5: 170505.
WebbRMKurtzL (2022) Politics v. science: How President Trump’s war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science188(1): 65–80.
53.
ZhouALiuWYangA (2024) Politicization of science in COVID-19 vaccine communication: Comparing US politicians, medical experts, and government agencies. Political Communication41(4): 649–671.
