Science populism impacts perceptions of credibility across scientific professions

Abstract

Science populism, a belief system that encourages people to be skeptical of the scientific community, should be of interest to those trying to communicate science-based information to the public. Given the recent rise in political polarization and science populism, scholars need to prioritize understanding how these groups evaluate a range of scientific sources, so that these skeptical audiences can be reached. To address this call, we surveyed U.S. adults (N = 875) to assess how science populism and political ideology impact credibility evaluations across various science professionals. High science populists rated all science information sources as less credible than low science populists, but there were differences in which sources each group rated most credible. High science populists considered research-based sources most credible, whereas low science populists considered government-based sources most credible. An interaction effect between science populism and political ideology was also observed, which may explain some of the differences in trust by political ideology observed in prior research. Post hoc analyses found that medical doctors were considered most credible by high and low science populists, highlighting their potential utility as a source to reach both audiences. We discuss the implications of these findings for science communication writ large.