Summary: A large-scale study from the University of Amsterdam measured how much people trust scientists across 45 distinct scientific fields and why. Surveying 2,780 U.S. participants, the research found substantial variation in public trust: neuroscientists and marine biologists ranked among the most trusted, while political scientists and economists were trusted less. The findings show that perceptions of competence and morality—especially morality for contentious topics—play a central role in whether the public grants scientists influence over policy decisions.
As governments and societies face complex challenges—from climate change and pandemics to biodiversity loss and social inequality—the degree to which the public trusts scientific experts affects whether scientific advice is integrated into policy. This study maps that trust across a wide spectrum of scientific occupations and highlights the factors that make some experts more persuasive or acceptable to the public than others.
Key facts:
- Wide variability in trust: Public trust in scientists varies markedly by field. Neuroscientists and marine biologists scored among the highest, while political scientists and economists scored lower on average.
- Drivers of trust: Perceived competence and perceived morality are the strongest predictors of trust in scientists. People are more willing to defer to experts they see as both skilled and ethically trustworthy.
- Policy relevance: Understanding these trust patterns matters for policy design and communication—especially in areas where scientific recommendations are controversial or politically charged.
Source: University of Amsterdam
Understanding why people vary in their trust of different scientific experts is essential for translating scientific knowledge into practical solutions. Until now, little research had compared trust across a wide range of scientific occupations. To address that gap, researchers led by Vukašin Gligorić at the University of Amsterdam assessed public evaluations of 45 types of scientists, from agronomists to zoologists.
Scientists play a central role in addressing global problems, and there is growing public expectation that experts will inform policies. Yet not all scientists are viewed equally: some occupations are seen as more competent or more morally trustworthy than others, and that variation affects whether people are willing to grant scientists a role in decision making.
From agronomists to zoologists
The study surveyed 2,780 adults in the United States and asked participants to rate 45 types of scientists along four social-evaluation dimensions:
- Competence: perceived intelligence and skill
- Assertiveness: perceived confidence and decisiveness
- Morality: perceived fairness, honesty, and ethical standards
- Warmth: perceived friendliness and concern for others
Participants also completed an Influence Granting Task that simulated a complex societal problem and asked them to allocate decision-making influence among various parties, one of which could be a group of scientists. This approach directly linked social evaluations to the willingness to grant scientists influence over real-world decisions.
Trust levels varied considerably
Overall, participants tended to trust scientists, but the level of trust differed widely by specialty. On a 7-point scale (1 = least trusted, 7 = most trusted), political scientists averaged 3.71 and economists 4.28, while neuroscientists and marine biologists received much higher average ratings—5.53 and 5.54 respectively. These differences show that the public’s readiness to rely on scientific expertise depends heavily on the perceived domain of knowledge.
Competence and morality
The study identified competence and morality as the most important antecedents of trust. When people judged a group of scientists to be both skilled and morally upright, they were significantly more likely to grant those scientists influence in dealing with societal problems.
Importantly, the contribution of morality to trust was context-dependent. Morality was especially influential for scientists working on polarized or contentious topics—such as climate scientists or social scientists addressing politically charged issues—where public skepticism and ideological disagreement are more common. For less controversial fields, other qualities like competence or technical expertise played a larger role.
Implications: account for scientific diversity in policy
The authors emphasize that treating scientists as a single, undifferentiated group misses crucial variation that matters for policy uptake. Mapping trust across scientific occupations can help policymakers, communicators, and institutions identify when and how scientific expertise will be accepted or resisted by the public.
Lead author Vukašin Gligorić notes that this study is an initial step: future work should test whether these patterns replicate outside the United States and investigate causal pathways between social perceptions and trust. Still, the existing evidence makes a clear point: the diversity of scientific fields must be taken into account when determining how best to integrate scientific knowledge into public decision-making.
About this neuroscience and psychology research news
Author: Laura Erdtsieck
Source: University of Amsterdam
Contact: Laura Erdtsieck – University of Amsterdam
Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
Original research: Open access. “How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists” by Vukašin Gligorić et al., published in PLOS ONE.
Abstract
How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists
Scientific expertise offers solutions for a variety of societal problems, but public trust and the willingness to grant experts influence are essential for those solutions to be adopted. Previous research has been limited in scope and has not captured variation across many scientific occupations. This study (N = 2,780, U.S. participants) examined how four dimensions of social evaluation—competence, assertiveness, morality, and warmth—shape trust in 45 types of scientists. Trust was generally positive but varied considerably by occupation. Perceived competence and morality were the strongest predictors of trust and of the willingness to grant scientists influence on societal problems. The association between morality and trust was strongest for scientists working on contentious, polarized issues (for example, climatologists). These results underscore the importance of accounting for the diversity of scientific occupations when assessing public trust and designing strategies to translate scientific knowledge into policy.