A new study from Virginia Tech found that scientists’ credibility often hinges on their perceived motivations
“Our study finds that perceptions of scientists’ motivation to serve the public good are the strongest predictor of whether Americans trust them, accept their information as credible, and support science-based policies,” said Dara Wald, associate professor in environmental policy and planning
Published in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, postdoctoral fellow Shumaila Bhatti and Associate Professor Dara M. Wald, both in the School of Public and International Affairs, identified five audience “classes” based on their perceptions of scientists’ credibility: enthusiasts, optimists, moderates, skeptics, and estranged. Researchers examined each group’s likelihood of adhering to recommendations from scientists, how they were influenced by politically controversial and non-controversial topics, and their underlying demographics.
According to the researchers, the work highlights a communication gap between how scientists often view credibility – expertise – and how the public perceives it – motivations — as well as many scientists lack training in communicating their personal motivations.
“The public wants something, expects something from science that science is not providing and scientists are not trained to do,” Bhatti said. “We’re trained to communicate our competence, expertise, or our research objectives. Our results suggest that the public also expects scientists to share the intentions behind the work we do, and I think that is where the disconnect is.”
To better understand these dynamics, the researchers surveyed 927 participants about their perceptions of scientists’ motivations and credibility. They also included an experiment where participants saw one of two articles — one on a generally accepted non-controversial topic of salmonella and one more controversial on heatwaves. Results suggest that public estimates of scientific credibility differed depending on the topic as well as the audience class
The five audience classes identified and characterized through this work were broken into the following groups from the high credibility perceptions to the lowest:
- Minimal skepticism
- Strongest support for environmental action and health behaviors
- Elevated social trust and general confidence in institutions
- Predominantly white/caucasian identity, relatively higher income levels, and a tendency toward liberal ideology
Optimists
- Support for topics and exhibit more notable context-dependency than enthusiasts
- Similar profile with enthusiasts — predominantly white/caucasian with mixed gender and age distributions — though leaning slightly more conservative politically
Moderates
- Stark context-dependency
- Supportive of environmental action in the case of salmonella but significantly lower support for heatwave interventions
- Susceptible to biased assimilation depending on issue salience
- Moderate political ideology — positioned between enthusiasts and skeptics/estranged — with mixed sociodemographic characteristics and no strong demographic clustering
Skeptics
- Reduced support for environmental action across both contexts
- Lower confidence in scientists’ motivations and diminished institutional trust
- Lower confidence suggests inferences about scientists’ political affiliations shape credibility judgments
- Clustered around conservative ideology, higher Republican affiliation, greater Black/African American representation lower educational attainment, and middle-aged and older
Estranged
- Dramatically lower support for environmental action across both contexts
- Minimal confidence in scientists’ motivations and the lowest institutional trust
- Strongest skepticism of scientific competence
- Maintains the most conservative ideology, strongest Republican affiliation, lower educational attainment, middle-aged and older, and higher male representation
“I was intrigued by the moderates because they were sometimes disengaged and other times engaged,” Bhatti said. “It depended on the context.”
The researchers warn that skepticism about scientific credibility can have real-world consequences if the public does not trust the motivation behind scientific findings or recommendations
“If there’s a flood forecasted, we want people to know that predictive models have suggested they’re at risk, right?” said Wald, an affiliate with the Invasive Species Collaborative. “Whether you believe that the causes of that flooding are climate related or not, the goal of sharing these models is to protect life and property. If the public is skeptical of the scientists making these predictions, they are less likely to take protective action.”
According to Wald and Bhatti, the study is the first step in closing an important communication gap between scientists and the public. Identifying different audience classes helps in understanding how different audiences may respond to scientific outreach and where scientists need to adjust their messaging to more effectively communicate to all audiences
“Even the most dismissive group generally had okay scores on scientific competence, but actually what they’re questioning here are scientists’ intentions, their values, and their motivations,” said Wald also affiliate with the Fralin Life Sciences Institute’s Global Change Center. “And those are the really big things that scientists are not prepared to talk about.”
Funding for this research was through Wald’s National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program award and by Department of Health and Human Services-National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Science
Original study: doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-07609-x
Contact:
Lindsey Haugh
