Opposing ends of the spectrum: Exploring trust in scientific and religious authorities

Abstract

Given the ethical questions that surround emerging science, this study is interested in studying public trust in scientific and religious authorities for information about the risks and benefits of science. Using data from a nationally representative survey of American adults, we employ regression analysis to better understand the relationships between several variables-including values, knowledge, and media attention-and trust in religious organizations and scientific institutions. We found that Evangelical Christians are generally more trusting of religious authority figures to tell the truth about the risks and benefits of science and technology, and only slightly less likely than non-Evangelicals to trust scientific authorities for the same information. We also found that many Evangelicals use mediated information and science knowledge differently than non-Evangelicals, with both increased knowledge and attention to scientific media having positive impacts on trust in scientific authorities among the latter, but not the former group.

Identifying Relevant Anti-Science Perceptions to Improve Science-Based Communication: The Negative Perceptions of Science Scale

“…To this extent, our findings parallel those found in the research on motivated reasoning and cultural cognition (e.g., Nisbet and Goidel 2007;Kahan et al 2010;Druckman and Bolsen 2011) that have consistently found that preexisting values and perceptions bias and filter the perception of available factual information. These findings also echo the work of other recent research that speaks to growing lack of public trust in science (Achterberg et al 2017;Cacciatore et al 2016), which, in our estimation, could function as one such bias. If the public holds views that scientists have ulterior motives that compromise the veracity of their claims, other rationales, such as ideological orientation, may be more likely to guide behavior.…”

The credibility of scientific communication sources regarding climate change: A population-based survey experiment

“…Previous research has performed a comparative analysis of the credibility of different social institutions (including religious authorities) regarding scientific issues such as climate change, and the way in which confidence in scientific institutions and scientists is associated with trust in other sources (e.g. Cacciatore et al, 2018;Carlisle et al, 2010;Liu and Priest, 2009;Myers et al, 2017;Peters et al, 1997;Priest et al, 2003). This study advances further, in line with the approach of Carlisle et al (2010), and while maintaining constant the scientific results attributed to scientists, an attempt is made to ascertain whether different sources of the same information affect its credibility.…”

Intention to Vaccinate Against the Novel 2019 Coronavirus Disease: The Role of Health Locus of Control and Religiosity

“…Second, since previous studies have established that religious leaders have a strong in uence on their followers (Cacciatore et al 2018;McPhetres and Zuckerman 2018;Scheufele et al 2009), we strongly propose that as scientists scramble for the development of a COVID-19 vaccine, they also establish a strong partnership with religious institutions through their leaders. This working relationship should be rooted in transparency of the ongoing vaccine development processes.…”

“…While religion assists in coping with life stressors, studies have also demonstrated religiosity to be strongly and positively correlated with trust in informal sources of information such as religious organization's website, spiritual leaders, and family/friends (Cacciatore et al 2018;Scheitle et al 2018).…”

“…In the United States, the tensions between science and religion are evident. Scienti cally, individuals with high levels of religiosity are more likely to hold negative views toward scienti c innovations and nanotechnology (Cacciatore et al 2018;McPhetres and Zuckerman 2018;Scheufele et al 2009). Therefore, while religion offers a source of comfort, higher levels of engagement in religious practices may unintentionally spread misinformation, yielding unsafe practices.…”