Open science and public trust in science: Results from two studies

Abstract

In two studies, we examined whether open science practices, such as making materials, data, and code of a study openly accessible, positively affect public trust in science. Furthermore, we investigated whether the potential trust-damaging effects of research being funded privately (e.g. by a commercial enterprise) may be buffered by such practices. After preregistering six hypotheses, we conducted a survey study (Study 1; N = 504) and an experimental study (Study 2; N = 588) in two German general population samples. In both studies, we found evidence for the positive effects of open science practices on trust, though it should be noted that in Study 2, results were more inconsistent. We did not however find evidence for the aforementioned buffering effect. We conclude that while open science practices may contribute to increasing trust in science, the importance of making use of open science practices visible should not be underestimated.

A preregistered vignette experiment on determinants of health data sharing behavior

“…Building on this information, invitation letters to protentional study participants could illustrate the trustworthiness of the respective data recipient and the purpose of the data collection. More generally, and in line with previous research (e.g., Aitken et al, 2016;Rosman et al, 2022;Waind, 2020), the findings underline that health research needs to clearly show that it serves public interest to achieve public acceptance. In the invitation letter, researchers should also make sure to address study-specific privacy concerns regarding data collection, storage, and processing.…”

Do Open-Science Badges Increase Trust in Scientists Among Undergraduates, Scientists, and the Public?

“…In line with these assumptions, a recent U.S. survey revealed that adults would trust scientific research findings more if the corresponding data were openly available (Funk et al, 2019). Recently, these findings were corroborated for the German context by Rosman et al (2022). Furthermore, Soderberg et al (2020) reported similar results on credibility judgments by scientists about preprints: Participants indicated the availability of research materials, data, and data-analysis scripts as the most relevant factor for their judgments.…”

Explaining Polarized Trust in Scientists: A Political Stereotype-Approach

“…Second, our results highlight the relevance of morality-related aspects (e.g., perceived bias) for polarized trust: Here, the effects were stronger and more robust on morality-based trust than on expertise-based trust (studies 1, 4a, and 4b), which hints at polarization of trust in science being particularly grounded in aspects of morality (E. H. Kennedy & Muzzerall, 2022;Rapp, 2016)-this means in perceptions of scientists' integrity and benevolence rather than their competence. Thus, information about scientific control processes (e.g., peer review, preregistrations, open materials) which make it less likely for scientists to bias their results in a desired (e.g., liberal) direction may increase trust (especially morality-based trust; Altenmüller et al, 2021;Hendriks et al, 2020;Rosman et al, 2022) among conservatives (i.e., reduce political polarization, Van Bavel et al, 2020).…”