Guided by literature suggesting that value similarity shapes trust in scientific authorities managing technological risks, we examined how science-related values affect trust formation. Our experiment found that individual value orientations moderated the effects of scientific authorities’ value displays. They also affected how people weigh ability, benevolence, and integrity to establish trust. Individuals with high deference to scientific authority judged power-oriented authorities more favorably and drew less on benevolence and integrity dimensions than did those low in deference. Those with higher technocratic beliefs rated universalism-oriented authorities as higher in benevolence and weighted this dimension more heavily in trust judgments.
AkinH.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. A. (2021). Publics’ support for novel and established science issues linked to perceived knowledge and deference to science. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edaa010
2.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
3.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2022). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis, 42(11), 2584–2592. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029
4.
BrossardD.NisbetM. C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edl003
5.
ColquittJ. A.ScottB. A.LePineJ. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909
6.
CummingsC. L.ChuahA. S. F.HoS. S. (2018). Protection motivation and communication through nanofood labels: Improving predictive capabilities of attitudes and purchase intentions toward nanofoods. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 43(5), 888–916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917753991
7.
DoneyP. M.CannonJ. P.MullenM. R. (1998). Understanding the influence of national culture on the development of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926629
8.
DrummondC.FischhoffB. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(36), 9587–9592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704882114
9.
EarleT. C.SiegristM. (2006). Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(2), 383–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00012.x
EarleT. C.SiegristM.GutscherH. (2007). Trust, risk perception, and the TCC Model of cooperation. In SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (Eds.), Trust in cooperative risk management: Uncertainty and scepticism in the public mind (pp. 1–50). Earthscan.
12.
EomD.MolderA. L.TostesonH. A.HowellE. L.DeSalazarM.KirschnerE.GoodwinS. S.ScheufeleD. A. (2025). Race and gender biases persist in public perceptions of scientists’ credibility. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 11021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-87321-z
13.
FiorinoD. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399001500204
14.
GeigerN.SargeM. A.ComfortR. 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
15.
HammJ. A. (2017). Trust, trustworthiness, and motivation in the natural resource management context. Society & Natural Resources, 30(8), 919–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1273419
16.
HauteaS.BesleyJ. C.ChoungH. (2024). Communicating trust and trustworthiness through scientists’ biographies: Benevolence beliefs. Public Understanding of Science, 33, 872–883. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625241228733
17.
HowellE. L.WirzC. D.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM. A. (2020). Deference and decision-making in science and society: How deference to scientific authority goes beyond confidence in science and scientists to become authoritarianism. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520962741
18.
HubnerA. Y.BullockO. M. (2025). Why science should have a female face: Female experts increase liking, competence, and trust in science. Science Communication, 47(4), 527–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241295676
19.
JohnsonB. B. (1999). Exploring dimensionality in the origins of hazard-related trust. Journal of Risk Research, 2(4), 325–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698799376763
20.
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2008.341
21.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
22.
MeijndersA.MiddenC.OlofssonA.ÖhmanS.MatthesJ.BondarenkoO.GuttelingJ.RusanenM. (2009). The role of similarity cues in the development of trust in sources of information about GM food. Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1116–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01240.x
23.
PoortvlietP. M.LokhorstA. M. (2016). The key role of experiential uncertainty when dealing with risks: Its relationships with demand for regulation and institutional trust. Risk Analysis, 36(8), 1615–1629. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12543
24.
RaimiK. T.WolskeK. S.HartP. S.Campbell-ArvaiV. (2020). The aversion to tampering with nature (ATN) scale: Individual differences in (dis)comfort with altering the natural world. Risk Analysis, 40(3), 638–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13414
25.
RousseauD. M.SitkinS. B.BurtR. S.CamererC. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
26.
SchoormanF. D.MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007.24348410
27.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25; pp. 1–65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
28.
SchwartzS. H. (2012). An overview of the schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
29.
SchwartzS. H.BardiA. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002
30.
SchwartzS. H.MelechG.LehmannA.BurgessS.HarrisM.OwensV. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001
31.
Secretariat Conference on Cultured Meat. (2021, September29). What is cultured meat: Cultured beef. Maastricht University. https://perma.cc/YP85-QH5E
32.
SiegristM. (2021). Trust and risk perception: A critical review of the literature. Risk Analysis, 41(3), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13325
33.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.203034
34.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2009). Salient value similarity, social trust and risk/benefit perception. In LöfstedtR. E.BoholmA. (Eds.), The Earthscan reader on risk (pp. 203–218). Earthscan.
35.
SiegristM.EarleT. C.GutscherH. (2003). Test of a trust and confidence model in the applied context of electromagnetic field (EMF) risks. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 705–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00349
36.
SiegristM.HartmannC. (2020). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814
SongH.MbahP. T. (2025). When trust matters: Perceived characteristics of behavioral guidance as moderators of trust in compliance decisions. Science Communication, 47(5), 702–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241304389
39.
SzejdaK.BryantC. J.UrbanovichT. (2021). US and UK consumer adoption of cultivated meat: A segmentation study. Foods, 10(5), 1050. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10051050
40.
TerwelB. W.HarinckF.EllemersN.DaamenD. D. L. (2009). Competence-based and integrity-based trust as predictors of acceptance of carbon dioxide capture and storage (ccs). Risk Analysis, 29(8), 1129–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01256.x
41.
VećkalovB.van StekelenburgA.van HarreveldF.RutjensB. T. (2023). Who is skeptical about scientific innovation? Examining worldview predictors of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, and human gene editing attitudes. Science Communication, 45(3), 337–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231184203
42.
WhiteM. P.EiserJ. R. (2006). Marginal trust in risk managers: Building and losing trust following decisions under uncertainty. Risk Analysis, 26(5), 1187–1203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00807.x
WilksM.PhillipsC. J. C. (2017). Attitudes to in vitro meat: A survey of potential consumers in the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(2), Article e0171904. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171904
45.
ZhuY.HeG.GaoL. (2022). Complementarity or substitution? The interaction effects between knowledge and trust on public attitudes toward genetic modification. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(3), Article edac027. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac027
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.
