Before the 2020 and 2024 US Presidential elections, several scientific journals publicly endorsed the Democratic candidates or opposed the Republican candidate. We conducted three highly-powered, pre-registered online experiments (N = 6,281) to examine how these endorsements affected trust in science. Results revealed significant declines in trust in science, driven primarily by moderate and conservative Americans. Drawing upon on the theoretical perspective that trust in science is not monolithic, but rather composed of distinct dimensions, we examined and observed effects across a range of trust-related domains, including perceptions of scientific integrity (impartiality), competence (ability), benevolence, and generalized trust in scientific institutions. These findings highlight how motivated reasoning can amplify existing skepticism when individuals who already perceive science as aligned with opposing political ideologies read political endorsements from within the scientific community. Amidst increasing science-skepticism and politicization, journals must consider the unintended consequences of political messaging on public perceptions of science.
AlabreseE.CapozzaF.GargP. (2024). Politicized scientists: Credibility cost of political expression on Twitter (SSRN Scholarly Paper 4922427). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4922427
2.
BenzimanY. (2020). “Winning” the “battle” and “beating” the COVID-19 “enemy”: Leaders’ use of war frames to define the pandemic. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 26(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000494
3.
BesleyJ. C.TiffanyL. 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
4.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12171
5.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 235–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
6.
BuchanN. R.BrewerM. B.GrimaldaG.WilsonR. K.FatasE.FoddyM. (2011). Global social identity and global cooperation. Psychological Science, 22(6), 821–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611409590
7.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
8.
CárdenasD.OrazaniN.StevensM.CruwysT.PlatowM.ZekulinM.ReynoldsK. J. (2021). United we stand, divided we fall: Sociopolitical predictors of physical distancing and hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic. Political Psychology, 42(5), 845–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12772
9.
ChandlerJ.MuellerP.PaolacciG. (2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0365-7
10.
ClarkC. J.IschC.ShariffA. (2024). Why do organizations take political stances? A review of reasons and risks. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 18(7), e12985. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12985
11.
CoelhoG. L.deH.WolfL. J.VilarR.MonteiroR. P.HanelP. H. P. (2024). Do left-wingers discriminate? A cross-country study on the links between political orientation, values, moral foundations, and the Covid-19 passport. Current Psychology, 43(18), 16746–16757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04554-9
12.
ColeJ. C.GillisA. J.van der LindenS.CohenM. A.VandenberghM. P. (2025). Social psychological perspectives on political polarization: Insights and implications for climate change. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(1), 115–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231186409
13.
CoppockA.GreenD. P. (2016). What can be learned from 500,000 online survey responses about party identification?Columbia University.
14.
CoppockA.McClellanO. A. (2019). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Research & Politics, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168018822174
EtzerodtS. F. (2025). The electoral consequences of abortion politicization in the US. European Journal of Politics and Gender, 8(2), 487–491. https://doi.org/10.1332/25151088Y2024D000000049
18.
FairbrotherM.ArrheniusG.BykvistK.CampbellT. (2021). Governing for future generations: How political trust shapes attitudes towards climate and debt policies. Frontiers in Political Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.656053
19.
HartP. S.ChinnS.SorokaS. (2020). Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Science Communication, 42(5), 679–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020950735
20.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (pp. xvii, 507). Guilford Press.
HuberG. A.ChoJ. J.BokemperS. E.GerberA. S.BradyW. J.McLoughlinK.CrockettM. J. (2025). Disagreements about threats to electoral integrity: Beliefs about the severity and frequency of fraudulent, uncounted, and forgone votes in the 2020 and 2024 elections. Political Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-025-10066-y
23.
ImhoffR.LambertyP. (2020). A bioweapon or a hoax? The link between distinct conspiracy beliefs about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak and pandemic behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(8), 1110–1118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620934692
24.
KaneJ. V.BarabasJ. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12396
KimJ. H.KweonY. (2024). Double penalty? How candidate class and gender influence voter evaluations. Research & Politics, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680241226511
27.
KossowskaM.CzarnekG.SzwedP. (2023). Political ideology and belief change in the face of counterevidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(6), 1157–1171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2965
28.
KraftP. W.LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214554758
29.
KuhnT. S. (2003). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In BirdA.LadymanJ. (Eds.), Arguing about science (pp. 356–368). Routledge.
LeeperT. J.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(1), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12164
34.
LewandowskyS.ArmaosK.BrunsH.SchmidP.HolfordD. L.HahnU.Al-RawiA.SahS.CookJ. (2022). When science becomes embroiled in conflict: Recognizing the public’s need for debate while combating conspiracies and misinformation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221084663
35.
LewandowskyS.MannM. E.BrownN. J. L.FriedmanH. (2016). Science and the public: Debate, denial, and skepticism. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i2.604
36.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
37.
LupiaA.AllisonD. B.JamiesonK. H.HeimbergJ.SkipperM.WolfS. M. (2024). Trends in US public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(11), e2319488121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319488121
38.
McFarlandS.BrownD.WebbM. (2012). Identification with all humanity as a moral concept and psychological construct. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412471346
39.
McLamoreQ.SyropoulosS.LeidnerB.HirschbergerG.YoungK.ZeinR. A.BaumertA.BilewiczM.BilgenA.van BezouwM. J.ChatardA.ChekrounP.ChinchillaJ.ChoiH.-S.EuhH.GomezA.KardosP.KhooY. H.LiM., . . . BurrowsB. (2022). Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 3724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-07508-6
40.
McLaughlinD. M.MewhirterJ.SandersR. (2021). The belief that politics drive scientific research & its impact on COVID-19 risk assessment. PLoS One, 16(4), e0249937. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249937
41.
MuldoonO. T.LiuJ. H.McHughC. (2021). The political psychology of COVID-19. Political Psychology, 42(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12775
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (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 Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
44.
OphirY.WalterD.JamiesonP. E.JamiesonK. 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 of the United States of America, 120(38), e2213838120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2213838120
45.
OreskesN.ConwayE. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. A&C Black.
46.
PielkeR. A. (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy overThe Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 405–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.004
47.
PopperK. (2013). Realism and the aim of science: From the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
RekkerR. (2021). The nature and origins of political polarization over science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(4), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662521989193
RuischB. C.MooreC.Granados SamayoaJ.BoggsS.LadanyiJ.FazioR. (2021). Examining the left-right divide through the lens of a global crisis: Ideological differences and their implications for responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Political Psychology, 42(5), 795–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12740
52.
ScheufeleD. A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13585–13592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111
53.
Schmid-PetriH. (2017). Politicization of science: How climate change skeptics use experts and scientific evidence in their online communication. Climatic Change, 145(3), 523–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2112-z
54.
StagnaroM.DruckmanJ.BerinskyA.ArecharA.WillerR.RandD. (2025). Representativeness and response validity across nine opt-in online samples. OSF. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h9j2d_v2
55.
SyropoulosS.LawK. F.Kraft-ToddG.MahA.MarkowitzE.YoungL. (2025). Responsibility to future generations: A strategy for combatting climate change across political divides. British Journal of Social Psychology, 64(1), e12775. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12775
TernovskiJ.OrrL. (2022). A note on increases in inattentive online survey-takers since 2020. Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media, 2, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2022.002
VanDreewB. M.PhillipsJ. B.MunisB. K.GoidelS. (2025). What’s woke? Ordinary Americans’ understandings of wokeness. Research & Politics, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680251335650
60.
VitriolJ. A.MarshJ. K. (2021). A pandemic of misbelief: How beliefs promote or undermine COVID-19 mitigation. Frontiers in Political Science, 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.648082
61.
WashburnA. N.SkitkaL. J. (2018). Science denial across the political divide: Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 972–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617731500
62.
WelleniusG. A.VisputeS.EspinosaV.FabrikantA.TsaiT. C.HennessyJ.DaiA.WilliamsB.GadepalliK.BoulangerA.PearceA.KamathC.SchlosbergA.BendeburyC.MandayamC.StantonC.BavadekarS.PluntkeC.DesfontainesD., . . . GabrilovichE. (2021). Impacts of social distancing policies on mobility and COVID-19 case growth in the US. Nature Communications, 12(1), 3118. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23404-5
ZhangF. J. (2023). Political endorsement byNature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(5), 696–706. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01537-5
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.
