Facets of Trust in Science: Researchers can be perceived as ethical and competent despite inconsistent research results
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2024.4230Keywords:
trust in science, perception of scientists, open science, constructive replicationAbstract
The public perception of science and scientists themselves has become a much-debated topic in recent years. In this article, we contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the public’s trust in science by focussing on the practices of science, which are often not known by the public. Building on previous research by Ebersole, Axt and Nosek (2016), we conducted a preregistered, quota-sampled survey in Austria (N = 564), where we presented participants with different scenarios about scientific practices. Thereby, we disentangled the perception of scientists–i.e., how competent and ethical they are being perceived–from the confidence in their scientific findings–i.e., how correct their results are being perceived. For instance, when “a researcher X conducted a study with an interesting finding, which he then publishes”, this researcher was–in our study– perceived as averagely competent and ethical, and the findings were perceived as neither correct nor incorrect (but somewhere in between). However, if “another researcher Y tried to replicate X’s finding, but failed - and X then criticized Y’s methodology and dismissed the new study”, researcher X was perceived as less competent, less ethical and the original results were perceived as less correct by participants. Importantly, if researcher X “acknowledges Y’s methodology” or “investigates the difference between the original study and the failed replication”, ratings for X’s competence and ethical behavior were higher than for how correct his results were being perceived. Moreover, the highest competence and ethics ratings were obtained, when researcher X was described to share the methods and data online for transparency. Psychological dispositions of the participants, such as political orientation or motivation for cognition, did not seem to affect these ratings to a large degree. These results are discussed in the light of Mertonian norms of science, which highlight cooperativeness and disinterestedness.
Metrics
References
Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & De Vries, R. (2007). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of us scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3–14.
Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M., & Pressgrove, G. (2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32.
Blaise, M., Marksteiner, T., Krispenz, A., & Bertrams, A. (2021). Measuring motivation for cognitive effort as state. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 785094.
Blotnicky, K. A., Franz-Odendaal, T., French, F., & Joy, P. (2018). A study of the correlation between STEM career knowledge, mathematics self-efficacy, career interests, and career activities on the likelihood of pursuing a STEM career among middle school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 1–15.
Brohmer, H., Köstenbaumer, D., Thaller, A. E., Fleiß, E., Athenstaedt, U., & Posch, A. (2023). Changing behavior while having climate change in mind? An investigation of social-psychological predictors for specific pro-environmental behaviors in the energy domain. Energy Efficiency, 16(7), 80.
Brohmer, H., & Walcher, S. (2024). "I Have Some Serious Doubts About this Vaccine..." – Generic conspiracy beliefs predict the acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination. Open Psychology, 6(2), 20220138.
Brotherton, R., French, C. C., & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 46573.
Brzezinski, A., Kecht, V., Van Dijcke, D., & Wright, A. L. (2021). Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(11), 1519–1527.
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376.
Čavojová, V., Šrol, J., & Ballová Mikušková, E. (2023). Scientific reasoning is associated with rejection of unfounded health beliefs and adherence to evidence-based regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Current Psychology, 1–15.
Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology: A manifesto for reforming the culture of scientific practice. Princeton University Press.
Cologna, V., Mede, N., Berger, S., Besley, J., Brick, C., Joubert, M., & Teran-Escobar, C. (2024). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 67 countries [Preprint]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378011710_Trust_in_scientists_and_their_role_in_society_across_67_countries
Crüwell, S., van Doorn, J., Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Moshontz, H., Niebaum, J. C., & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M. (2019). Seven easy steps to open science. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(4).
Dobbin, K. K., & Simon, R. M. (2011). Optimally splitting cases for training and testing high-dimensional classifiers. BMC Medical Genomics, 4, 1–8.
Eberl, J. M., Greussing, E., Huber, R. A., & Mede, N. G. (2021). Wissenschaftsbezogener Populismus: Eine österreichische Bestandsaufnahme [Science-related populism: An Austrian evaluation] [Retrieved from Universität Wien].
https://viecer.univie.ac.at/corona-blog/corona-blog-beitraege/blog124/
Ebersole, C. R., Axt, J. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2016). Scientists’ reputations are based on getting it right, not being right. PLOS Biology, 14(5), e1002460.
European Commission. (2021a). Europeans strongly support science and technology according to new Eurobarometer survey [Press release by the European Commission, September 23, 2021].
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_4645
European Commission. (2021b). Special Eurobarometer 516 – April-May 2021: European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2775/071577
Feist, G. J. (2012). Predicting interest in and attitudes toward science from personality and need for cognition. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(7), 771–775.
Funk, C., Johnson, C., & Hefferon, M. (2019). 5 key findings about public trust in scientists in the U.S. [Report by the Pew Research Center]. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/5-key-findings-about-public-trust-in-scientists-in-the-u-s/
Funk, C., Tyson, A., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (2020). Science and scientists held in high esteem across global publics [Report by the Pew Research Center]. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/
Gemenis, K., & Littvay, L. (2023). Covid-19 conspiracy beliefs and government rule compliance [European Social Survey Report]. https : / / www.europeansocialsurvey.org/news/article/round-10-covid-19-questions-finalised
Haseltine, W. A. (2021). How covid changed science [May 25, 2021]. https : / / www .scientificamerican . com / article / how - covid-changed-science
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R. (2015). Measuring laypeople’s trust in experts in a digital age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLOS One, 10(10), e0139309.
Hofer, G., Brohmer, H., Grinschgl, S., Kanatschnig, T., Korda, Ž., & Potthoff, J. (2023). Can open science practices improve trust in science? [Pre-Study Poster presentation, Society for the Improvement of Psychological Science (SIPS) 2023 Meeting]. https://osf.io/4s6av
Hofer, G., Macher, S., & Neubauer, A. C. (2022). Love is not blind: What romantic partners know about our abilities compared to ourselves, our close friends, and our acquaintances. Journal of Research in Personality, 98, 104211.
Houtkoop, B. L., Chambers, C., Macleod, M., Bishop, D. V., Nichols, T. E., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2018). Data sharing in psychology: A survey on barriers and preconditions. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(1), 70–85.
Hüffmeier, J., Mazei, J., & Schultze, T. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 81–92.
Köhler, T., & Cortina, J. M. (2023). Constructive replication, reproducibility, and generalizability: Getting theory testing for jomsr right. Journal of Management Scientific Reports, 1(2), 75–93.
Krüger, J. T., Höffler, T. N., & Parchmann, I. (2022). Trust in science and scientists among secondary school students in two out-of-school learning activities. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 12(2), 111–125.
Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362.
Lee, P., Goldberg, C., & Kohane, I. (2023). The AI revolution in medicine: GPT-4 and beyond. Pearson. https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/the-ai-revolution-in-medicine-gpt-4-and-beyond/P200000011399/9780138279516
LimeSurvey GmbH. (2023). LimeSurvey: An open source survey tool. LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Lovakov, A., & Agadullina, E. R. (2021). Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(3), 485–504.
Macfarlane, B., & Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, universalism and disinterestedness: Re-examining contemporary support among academics for Merton’s scientific norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 67–78.
McCright, A. M., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., & Dietz, T. (2013). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 044029.
McCright, A. M., Dunlap, R. E., & Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2016). Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environmental Politics, 25(2), 338–358.
Merton, R. K. (1942). A note on science and democracy. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1(1–2), 115–126.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/jolegpo1&i=115
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., & Ioannidis, J. (2017).
A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 1–9.
Nosek, B. A., & Errington, T. M. (2020). What is replication? PLOS Biology, 18(3), e3000691.
OeAW - Austrian Academy of Sciences. (2022). OeAW Wissenschafts-Barometer Pilotstudie 2022 [Report by Gallup International].
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/wissenschaftsbarometer/ergebnisse/2022
Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S. W., & Petty, R. E. (2022). Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), e2120755119.
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Penguin UK.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/267227/enlightenment-now-by-pinker-steven/9780141979090
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
Rabesandratana, T. (2019). These are the countries that trust scientists the most—and the least [June 18, 2019]. Science.
Ranney, M. A., & Clark, D. (2016). Climate change conceptual change: Scientific information can transform attitudes. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 49–75.
Riccardi, P. (2023). How to restore trust in science through education. Nature Physics, 19(2), 146–147.
Robson, S. G., Baum, M. A., Beaudry, J. L., Beitner, J., Brohmer, H., Chin, J. M., ..., & Thomas, A. (2021).
Promoting open science: A holistic approach to changing behaviour. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 30137.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638–641.
Rosman, T., Bosnjak, M., Silber, H., Koßmann, J., & Heycke, T. (2022). Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies. Public Understanding of Science, 31(8), 1046–1062.
Schneider, J., Rosman, T., Kelava, A., & Merk, S. (2022). Do open-science badges increase trust in scientists among undergraduates, scientists, and the public? Psychological Science, 33(9), 1588–1604.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609–612.
Song, H., Markowitz, D. M., & Taylor, S. H. (2022). Trusting on the shoulders of open giants? Open science increases trust in science for the public and academics. Journal of Communication, 72(4), 497–510.
Spälti, A. K., Lyons, B., Stoeckel, F., Stöckli, S., Szewach, P., Mérola, V., ..., & Reifler, J. (2023). Partisanship and anti-elite worldviews as correlates of science and health beliefs in the multi-party system of Spain. Public Understanding of Science, 32(6), 761–780.
Szabelska, A., Pollet, T. V., Dujols, O., Klein, R. A., & IJzerman, H. (2021). A tutorial for exploratory research: An eight-step approach [Preprint].
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science [Programme and Meeting Document].
van Dalen, H. P. (2021). How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1675–1694.
van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. B. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516–R517.
Vranic, A., Hromatko, I., & Tonković, M. (2022). "I did my own research": Overconfidence, (dis)trust in science, and endorsement of conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 931865.
White, R. E., & Cooper, K. (2022). Hermeneutic inquiry. In R. E. White & K. Cooper (Eds.), Qualitative research in the post-modern era (pp. 59–91). Springer.
Wissenschaft im Dialog. (2023). Science Barometer 2023 [Report retrieved from https://wissenschaft-im-dialog.de/projekte/wissenschaftsbarometer/#erhebung-2023].
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Hilmar Brohmer, Simon Ceh, Marta Czerwonka, Sandra Grinschgl, Gabriela Hofer, Izabela Lebuda, Hildrun Walter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
