Value-Based Narratives Foster Trust in Scientists and Communication Behaviors

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of value-based narratives on American adult participants’ trust perception. In a first-person narrative, a medical scientist described their value-based motivations for developing artificial intelligence (AI) technology for medical diagnosis. Results indicated that only benevolence perception was positively related to transportation and identification. Furthermore, only identification was positively related to story-consistent beliefs, which were positively associated with the intention to engage in further communication behaviors. These findings suggest that to communicate effectively about novel technologies, scientists should share their altruistic motives or self-transcendence values, rather than their credentials or ambitions, with the public.

Keywords

trust value narrative AI science communication

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Appel

Gnambs

Richter

Green

M. C.

(2015). The Transportation Scale–Short Form (TS–SF). Media Psychology, 18(2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2014.987400

Appel

Mara

(2013). The persuasive influence of a fictional character’s trustworthiness. Journal of Communication, 63(5), 912–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12053

Appel

Richter

(2010). Transportation and need for affect in narrative persuasion: A mediated moderation model. Media Psychology, 13(2), 101–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213261003799847

Arora

N. K.

McHorney

C. A.

(2000). Patient preferences for medical decision making: Who really wants to participate? Medical Care, 38(3), 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200003000-00010

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Berkowitz

Donnerstein

(1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37(3), 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.3.245

Besley

J. C.

Lee

N. M.

Pressgrove

(2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547

Besley

J. C.

Tiffany

L. A.

(2023). What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure? Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 709–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231161302

Bilandzic

Sukalla

Schnell

Hastall

M.R.

Busselle

R.W.

(2019) The narrative engageability scale: A multidimensional trait measure for the propensity to become engaged in a story. International Journal of Communication, 13, 801–832.

10.

Braddock

Dillard

J. P.

(2016). Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs, 83(4), 446–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1128555

11.

Bucchi

(2015). Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology, 15(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X14558766

12.

Busselle

Bilandzic

(2009). Measuring narrative engagement. Media Psychology, 12(4), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260903287259

13.

Chen

Bell

R. A.

(2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging. Psychology & Health, 37(5), 545–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1894331

14.

Chen

Z. H.

Lin

C. F.

R. H.

Sun

(2021). Artificial intelligence for assisting cancer diagnosis and treatment in the era of precision medicine. Cancer Communications, 41(11), 1100–1115. https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12215

15.

Choung

David

Ross

(2023). Trust in AI and its role in the acceptance of AI technologies. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 39(9), 1727–1739. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2050543

16.

Clementson

D. E.

(2020). Narrative persuasion, identification, attitudes, and trustworthiness in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101889

17.

Cohen

(2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01

18.

Cologna

Kotcher

Mede

N. G.

Besley

Maibach

Oreskes

(2023). Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review. PLOS Climate, 3(5), Article e0000400. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hj2xk

19.

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2010). The role of causality in information acceptance in narratives: An example from science communication. Communication Research, 37(6), 857–875. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362683

20.

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111

21.

Dahlstrom

M. F.

Rosenthal

(2018). Third-person perception of science narratives: The case of climate change denial. Science Communication, 40(3), 340–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018766556

22.

de Graaf

Hoeken

Sanders

Beentjes

J. W. J

. (2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594

23.

Dietz

(2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14081–14087. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110

24.

Dunlop

S. M.

Wakefield

Kashima

(2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37(1), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209351912

25.

Earle

Cvetkovich

(1995). Social trust: Toward a cosmopolitan society. Bloomsbury Academic.

26.

Earle

Cvetkovich

(1997). Culture, cosmopolitanism and risk management. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00843.x

27.

Earle

Siegrist

(2006). Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 383–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00012.x

28.

Earle

Siegrist

(2008). Trust, confidence and cooperation model: A framework for understanding the relation between trust and risk perception. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 8(1/2), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGENVI.2008.017257

29.

Edwards

(2024, June 20). Poll reveals Americans’ fears about AI. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/poll-reveals-fears-ai-smarter-attack-humanity-1915100

30.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

31.

Fiske

S. T.

Dupree

(2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111

32.

Fitzgerald

Paravati

Green

M. C.

Moore

M. M.

Qian

J. L.

(2020). Restorative narratives for health promotion. Health Communication, 35(3), 356–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1563032

33.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

34.

Frimer

J. A.

Biesanz

J. C.

Walker

L. J.

MacKinlay

C. W.

(2013). Liberals and conservatives rely on common moral foundations when making moral judgments about influential people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(6), 1040–1059. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032277

35.

Funk

Hefferon

Kennedy

Johnson

(2019). Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center Science & Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts

36.

Geiger

Sarge

M. A.

Comfort

R. N.

(2022). An examination of expertise, caring and salient value similarity as source factors that garner support for advocated climate policies. Environmental Communication, 16(6), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2080242

37.

Gillath

Branicky

M. S.

Keshmiri

Davison

R. B.

Spaulding

(2021). Attachment and trust in artificial intelligence. Computers in Human Behavior, 115, 106607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106607

38.

Goh

Gallo

Hom

Strong

Weng

Kerman

Cool

J. A.

Kanjee

Parsons

A. S.

Ahuja

Horvitz

Yang

Milstein

Olson

A. P. J.

Rodman

Chen

J. H.

(2024). Large language model influence on diagnostic reasoning: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 7(10), Article e2440969.

39.

Graham

Haidt

Koleva

Motyl

Iyer

Wojcik

S. P.

Ditto

P. H.

(2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Devine

Plant

(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4

40.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

(2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141

41.

Green

M. C.

(2021). Transportation into narrative worlds. In Frank

L. B.

Falzone

(Eds.) Entertainment-education behind the scenes (pp. 87–101). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63614-2_6

42.

Green

M. C.

Brock

T. C.

(2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

43.

Gregório

Teixeira

Henriques

Páscoa

Baptista

Carvalho

Martins

(2021). What role do patients prefer in medical decision-making? A population-based nationwide cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 11(10), Article e048488. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048488

44.

Hagmann

Minson

J. A.

Tinsley

C. H

(2024). Personal narratives build trust across ideological divides. Journal of Applied Psychology, 109(11), 1693–1715. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001201

45.

Haidt

Graham

Joseph

(2009). Above and below left and right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028573

46.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.

47.

Haste

. (2025). Morality stories: How narratives define explanations of ethics. Culture & Psychology, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X251315736.

48.

Hautea

Besley

J. C.

Choung

(2024). Communicating trust and trustworthiness through scientists’ biographies: Benevolence beliefs. Public Understanding of Science, 33(7), 872–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241228733

49.

Heath

(2023, August 8). U.S. public opinion is evenly split on AI. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2023/08/08/ai-divides-america-polls-chatgpt

50.

Hendriks

Kienhues

Bromme

(2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster epistemic trustworthiness inventory (METI). PLOS ONE, 10(10), Article e0139309. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139309

51.

Hicks

M. T.

Humphries

Slater

(2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(2), 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

52.

Hinyard

L. J.

Kreuter

M. W.

(2007). Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education & Behavior, 34(5), 777–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198106291963

53.

Jamieson

K. H.

(2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2620–2627. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114

54.

Johnson

B. B.

Dieckmann

N. F.

(2020). Americans’ views of scientists’ motivations for scientific work. Public Understanding of Science, 29(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519880319

55.

Jones

J. M.

(2021, July 16). Democratic, republican confidence in science diverges. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx

56.

Kahan

D. M.

(2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463, 296–297. https://doi.org/10.1038/463296a

57.

Kahan

D. M.

Braman

Slovic

Gastil

Cohen

(2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341

58.

Kaplan

Dahlstrom

M. F.

(2017). How narrative functions in entertainment to communicate science. In Jamieson

K. H.

Kahan

Scheufele

D. A.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 311–320). Oxford University Press.

59.

Kaur

Singla

Nkenyereye

Jha

Prashar

Joshi

G. P.

El-Sappagh

Islam

S. M. R.

(2020). Medical diagnostic systems using artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms: Principles and perspectives. IEEE Access, 8, 228049–228069. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3042273

60.

Kennedy

Tyson

(2023). Americans’ trust in scientists positive view of science continue to decline. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/

61.

Kim

Y. W.

Lim

Y. G.

(2023). Exploring the user acceptance of urban air mobility: Extending the technology acceptance model with trust and service quality factors. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(14), 2893–2904. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2087662

62.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792

63.

McQueen

Kreuter

M. W.

Kalesan

Alcaraz

K. I.

(2011). Understanding narrative effects: The impact of breast cancer survivor stories on message processing, attitudes, and beliefs among African American women. Health Psychology, 30(6), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025395

64.

Morgan

S. E.

Movius

Cody

M. J.

(2009). The power of narratives: The effect of entertainment television organ donation storylines on the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of donors and nondonors. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01408.x

65.

Moyer-Gusé

(2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

66.

Moyer-Gusé

Chung

A. H.

Jain

(2011). Identification with characters and discussion of taboo topics after exposure to an entertainment narrative about sexual health. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01551.x

67.

Murphy

S. T.

Frank

L. B.

Moran

M. B.

Patnoe-Woodley

(2011). Involved, transported, or emotional? Exploring the determinants of change in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior in entertainment-education. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01554.x

68.

Myers

T. A.

Nisbet

M. C.

Maibach

E. W.

Leiserowitz

A. A.

(2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A letter. Climatic Change, 113, 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6

69.

Myrick

J. G.

(2023). The effects and implications of consuming multiple science narratives on different types of audience engagement. In Fuyuan

Heidi

H. E.

(Eds.), Narratives in public communication (pp. 58–84). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003375760-4

70.

Nijhof

(2023). Narrative transportation, identification, and storytelling in environmental (science) communication: Immersing audiences in a story. ScienceOpen Preprints. https://doi.org/10.14293/PR2199.000068.v1

71.

Nilsson

Hansla

Heiling

J. M.

Bergstad

C. J.

Martinsson

(2016). Public acceptability towards environmental policy measures: Value-matching appeals. Environmental Science & Policy, 61, 176–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.013

72.

Ophir

Jamieson

K. H.

(2021). The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211012630

73.

Ophir

Walter

Jamieson

P. E.

Jamieson

K. H.

(2023). Factors assessing science’s self-presentation model and their effect on conservatives’ and liberals’ support for funding science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(38), Article e2213838120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213838120

74.

Ophir

Walter

Jamieson

P. E.

Jamieson

K. H.

(2024). The politicization of climate science: Media consumption, perceptions of science and scientists, and support for policy. Journal of Health Communication, 29, 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2024.2357571

75.

Oreskes

Conway

E. M.

(2022). From anti-government to anti-science: Why conservatives have turned against science. Daedalus, 151(4), 98–123. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01946

76.

Pew Research Center. (2023, November 21). What the data says about Americans’ views of artificial intelligence. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/11/21/what-the-data-says-about-americans-views-of-artificial-intelligence/

77.

Poortinga

Pidgeon

N. F.

(2003). Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation. Risk Analysis, 23(5), 961–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00373

78.

PytlikZillig

L. M.

Hamm

J. A.

Shockley

Herian

M. N.

Neal

T. M. S.

Kimbrough

C. D.

Tomkins

A. J.

Bornstein

B. H.

(2016). The dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of Trust Research, 6(2), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2016.1151359

79.

Robertson

(2024, August 13). Poll: AI is looking more partisan. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/digital-future-daily/2024/01/23/poll-ai-is-looking-more-partisan-00137296

80.

Rynes

S. L.

Colbert

A. E.

O’Boyle

E. H.

(2018). When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management, 44(8), 2995–3010. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318796934

81.

Sangalang

Ophir

Cappella

J. N.

(2019). The potential for narrative correctives to combat misinformation. Journal of Communication, 69(3), 298–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz014

82.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press.

83.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

Vecchione

Davidov

Fischer

Beierlein

Ramos

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

Demirutku

Dirilen-Gumus

Konty

(2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393

84.

Shen

Sheer

V. C.

(2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467

85.

Siegrist

(2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325

86.

Siegrist

Cvetkovich

Roth

(2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034

87.

Siegrist

Earle

T. C.

Heinz

. (2007). Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind. Routledge & CRC Press.

88.

Slater

M. D.

Rouner

(2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x

89.

Slimak

M. W.

Dietz

(2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1689–1705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x

90.

Steinke

Applegate

Lapinski

Ryan

Long

(2012). Gender differences in adolescents’ wishful identification with scientist characters on television. Science Communication, 34(2), 163–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547011410250

91.

Sztompka

(2007). Trust in science: Robert K. Merton’s inspirations. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X07078038

92.

Van-Laer

de-Ruyter

(2010). In stories we trust: How narrative apologies provide cover for competitive vulnerability after integrity-violating blog posts. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.12.010

93.

Weber

C. R.

Federico

C. M.

(2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00922.x

94.

Whitfield

S. C.

Rosa

E. A.

Dan

Dietz

(2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x

95.

Yang

Hobbs

J. E.

(2020). The power of stories: Narratives and information framing effects in science communication. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 102(4), 1271–1296. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajae.12078