How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists.

Science can offer solutions to a wide range of societal problems. Key to capitalizing on such solutions is the public's trust and willingness to grant influence to scientists in shaping policy. However, previous research on determinants of trust is limited and does not factor in the diversity of scientific occupations. The present study (N = 2,780; U.S. participants) investigated how four well-established dimensions of social evaluations (competence, assertiveness, morality, warmth) shape trust in 45 types of scientists (from agronomists to zoologists). Trust in most scientists was relatively high but varied considerably across occupations. Perceptions of morality and competence emerged as the most important antecedents of trust, in turn predicting the willingness to grant scientists influence in managing societal problems. Importantly, the contribution of morality (but not competence) varied across occupations: Morality was most strongly associated with trust in scientists who work on contentious and polarized issues (e.g., climatologists). Therefore, the diversity of scientific occupations must be taken into account to more precisely map trust, which is important for understanding when scientific solutions find their way to policy.

Stereotypes and social evaluations of scientists are related to different antecedents and outcomes.

Research on scientist perceptions tends to focus on either stereotypes (white, male) or social evaluations (competent but cold), sometimes yielding incongruent conclusions (e.g. scientists are simultaneously seen as moral and immoral). Across two preregistered correlational studies (N = 1091), we address this issue by simultaneously assessing stereotypes and social evaluations and their association with two key outcomes: trust in scientists and science career appeal. We find that stereotypes and social evaluations are distinct types of perceptions-they correlate slightly, stem from different worldviews, and predict partially different outcomes. While western enculturation and religiosity predict stereotypes, right-wing political ideology negatively relates to social evaluations. Stereotypes are associated with lower science career appeal among stereotype-incongruent individuals, while social evaluations predict more trust in scientists and higher science career appeal. This work thus sheds light on the psychological pathways to trust in scientists, as well as on the perceived appeal of becoming a scientist.

Scientists, speak up! Source impacts trust in health advice across five countries.

We examined how different types of communication influence people's responses to health advice. We tested whether presenting COVID-19 prevention advice (e.g., washing hands/distancing) as either originating from a government or scientific source would affect people's trust in and intentions to comply with the advice. We also manipulated uncertainty in communicating the advice effectiveness. To achieve this, we conducted an experiment using large samples of participants (N = 4,561) from the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Across countries, participants found messages more trustworthy when the purported source was science rather than the government. This effect was moderated by political orientation in all countries except for Canada, while religiosity moderated the source effect in the United States. Although source did not directly affect intentions to act upon the advice, we found an indirect effect via trust, such that a more trusted source (i.e., science) was predictive of higher intentions to comply. However, the uncertainty manipulation was not effective. Together, our findings suggest that despite prominence of science skepticism in public discourse, people trust scientists more than governments when it comes to practical health advice. It is therefore beneficial to communicate health messages by stressing their scientific bases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

I am (not) sorry: Interpersonal effects of neutralizations after a transgression.

After a transgression, people often use neutralizations to account for their behavior, for instance, by apologizing or offering a justification. Previous research has mostly centered around the intrapersonal effects of neutralizations on actors. Consequently, we know very little of the interpersonal effects of neutralizations on observers' perceptions and judgments. Our overarching hypothesis is that neutralizations that contain an acknowledgment of wrongdoing (i.e., apologies and excuses) lead to more favorable perceptions of the transgressor and the transgression than neutralizations that do not (i.e., justifications). We report three studies (N = 800) to investigate the relationship between the type of neutralization used and observers' perceptions of actors and their behaviors. Our findings show that actor and behavior are evaluated differently depending on whether the neutralization used is an apology, an excuse, a consequentialist justification, or a deontological justification. Overall, justifications led to more negative evaluations (especially when invoking deontological reasoning), while apologies and excuses fostered more positive evaluations. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the social dynamics of norm violations and the social and legal implications for enforcing norm abidance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Spirituality is associated with Covid-19 vaccination scepticism.

Vaccine scepticism poses a significant global health risk, which has again become clear during the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Previous research has identified spirituality as an important contributor to general vaccine scepticism. In the present manuscript, we assessed whether self-identified spirituality similarly contributes to scepticism towards Covid-19 vaccines, vaccine uptake, and indecisiveness in intention to be vaccinated. We conducted three studies online in the UK in late 2020, early 2021, and the summer 2021. In Studies 1 and 2 (N = 585), as expected, individuals who strongly identified as spiritual were more sceptical about Covid-19 vaccines. This association was explained by low faith in science, but not by conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, among the vaccinated participants, those who were more spiritual were more indecisive to get a Covid-19 vaccine. Using structural equation modelling (SEM), we further found that spirituality directly predicted lower likelihood of being vaccinated against Covid-19 (Study 3, N = 456). We also identified low science literacy as an additional predictor of Covid-19 scepticism, but not self-reported vaccine uptake. To conclude, spiritual beliefs are an important factor to consider when aiming to increase understanding of vaccine-related science scepticism and vaccination rejection.

Spirituality and religiosity contribute to ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates: Comparing 195 regions around the world.

Vaccine hesitancy has taken global prominence with the rapid spread of COVID-19, but what factors are related to this considerable variation in vaccination rates globally? Three studies that encompass 195 unique regions from around the world found that the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region predict ongoing COVID-19 vaccination rates, such that those regions higher in spirituality and/or religiosity are regions with lower COVID-19 vaccination rates. In Study 1, data from 23 regions globally were obtained, and both spirituality and religiosity were negatively associated with vaccination rates. These effects held when applying two methods to account for vaccine supply issues. In Study 2, data from 144 regions globally were obtained, and once again religiosity negatively predicted COVID-19 vaccination rates. It remained a significant predictor of vaccination rates when controlling for GDP, population age, collectivism, general skepticism towards vaccinations, and previous inoculation history. In Study 3, data from all USA states and the District of Columbia were obtained, and religiosity and spirituality once again were negatively associated with COVID-19 vaccination rates. Effects held controlling for other factors. Across studies, spirituality and religiosity account for a large amount of the variance in vaccination rates. These results suggest that real-world behavior can be predicted by the relative spirituality and religiosity of a region.

Social evaluations of scientific occupations.

Science and scientists are among the key drivers of societal progress and technological developments. While research has demonstrated that science is perceived as heterogeneous, work on perceptions of scientists usually considers "scientists" as members of a homogeneous group. In the present research, we went beyond this general categorization by investigating differences in social evaluations of different types of scientists. Across four studies conducted in the UK and the US (total N = 1441), we discovered that members of the most frequently mentioned scientific occupations (35 and 36 respectively in each country) are seen as highly competent, relatively moral, but only moderately sociable. We also found that individuals perceive differences between scientific occupations across social dimensions, which were captured in clusters of scientific occupations. Chemists, biologists, and physicists represented the most mentioned and highly prototypical scientific occupations. Perceived prototypicality was primarily associated with competence ratings, meaning that, in the public's view, to be a scientist means to be competent. Perceptions of morality and sociability varied notably across clusters. Overall, we demonstrate that focusing only on "scientists" leads to overgeneralization, and that distinguishing between different types of scientists provides a much-needed nuanced picture of social evaluations of scientists across occupations.

The (im-)moral scientist? Measurement and framing effects shape the association between scientists and immorality.

Recent years have not only seen growing public distrust in science, but also in the people conducting science. Yet, attitudes toward scientists remain largely unexplored, and the limited body of literature that exists points to an interesting ambivalence. While survey data suggest scientists to be positively evaluated (e.g., respected and trusted), research has found scientists to be perceived as capable of immoral behavior. We report two experiments aimed at identifying what contributes to this ambivalence through systematic investigations of stereotypical perceptions of scientists. In these studies, we particularly focus on two potential sources of inconsistencies in previous work: divergent operationalizations of morality (measurement effects), and different specifications of the broad group of scientists (framing effects). Results show that scientists are generally perceived as more likely to violate binding as opposed to individualizing moral foundations, and that they deviate from control groups more strongly on the latter. The extent to which different morality measures reflect the differentiation between binding and individualizing moral foundations at least partially accounts for previous contradictory findings. Moreover, the results indicate large variation in perceptions of different types of scientists: people hold more positive attitudes toward university-affiliated scientists as compared to industry-affiliated scientists, with perceptions of the 'typical scientist' more closely resembling the latter. Taken together, the findings have important academic ramifications for science skepticism, morality, and stereotyping research as well as valuable practical implications for successful science communication.

Conspiracy beliefs and science rejection.

We review recent work on the relationship between science rejection and conspiracy beliefs. We distinguish between conspiracy beliefs about science specifically and the link between general conspiracist worldviews and science rejection. The first imply the scientific community as the center of a conspiratorial endeavor to misrepresent scientific findings. We outline several potential contributors to these beliefs: science is a social enterprise; its policy implications can clash with deeply held personal beliefs; science is inherently uncertain. Second, more general conspiracist thinking and worldviews also contribute to science rejection, for example in the domains of climate change, vaccination and genetic modification. This could be exacerbated by several cognitive biases associated with conspiratorial thinking. Finally, we briefly review pathways to curb (conspiratorial) science rejection.

Meating Conflict: Toward a Model of Ambivalence-Motivated Reduction of Meat Consumption.

An increasing number of people are concerned about eating meat, despite enjoying doing so. In the present research, we examined whether the desire to resolve this ambivalence about eating meat leads to a reduction in meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction proposes that the pervasive nature of evaluative conflict motivates meat avoidance, and we highlight two potential mechanisms involved: the anticipation of ambivalence reduction through behavioral change, and information seeking for contents that facilitate meat reduction. Study 1 drew on a cross-sectional 6-day food diary with 7485 observations in a quota sample to investigate why meat-related ambivalence arises and to demonstrate the correlation of ambivalence with meat reduction. Two experiments investigated the causal direction of this association by showing that ambivalence-induced discomfort motivated participants to eat less meat when they introspected on their preexisting incongruent evaluations (Study 2 and 3), which was mediated by the aforementioned mechanisms involved (Study 3; preregistered). The studies utilized diverse samples from Germany, England, and the US (total N = 1192) and support the proposed model by indicating that behavioral change is an important coping strategy to resolve ambivalent discomfort in the context of meat consumption. Our model of ambivalence-motivated meat reduction contributes to theorizing on the consequences of ambivalence and the psychology of (not) eating meat.

The Einstein effect provides global evidence for scientific source credibility effects and the influence of religiosity.

People tend to evaluate information from reliable sources more favourably, but it is unclear exactly how perceivers' worldviews interact with this source credibility effect. In a large and diverse cross-cultural sample (N = 10,195 from 24 countries), we presented participants with obscure, meaningless statements attributed to either a spiritual guru or a scientist. We found a robust global source credibility effect for scientific authorities, which we dub 'the Einstein effect': across all 24 countries and all levels of religiosity, scientists held greater authority than spiritual gurus. In addition, individual religiosity predicted a weaker relative preference for the statement from the scientist compared with the spiritual guru, and was more strongly associated with credibility judgements for the guru than the scientist. Independent data on explicit trust ratings across 143 countries mirrored our experimental findings. These findings suggest that irrespective of one's religious worldview, across cultures science is a powerful and universal heuristic that signals the reliability of information.

Science rejection in Greece: Spirituality predicts vaccine scepticism and low faith in science in a Greek sample.

Recent research has identified spirituality as an important contributor to vaccine scepticism and low faith in science, particularly in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) nations. In the present study, we further tested the generalizability of these findings in a religious South-Eastern European country - Greece, with more extensive measures of key constructs. We replicate previous work using measures of improved construct validity. Spirituality was found to be the strongest predictor of vaccine scepticism and low faith in science. In addition, low science literacy was also predictive of vaccine rejection. Climate change scepticism was not associated with spirituality but with political conservatism, which corroborates previous findings. These results provide further evidence for two previously made observations: science scepticism is heterogeneous, and spirituality is an important factor in shaping science rejection.

The psychological impact of threat and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: exacerbating factors and mitigating actions.

In spring 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. The threat the pandemic poses as well as associated lockdown measures created challenging times for many. This study aimed to investigate the individual and social factors associated with low mental health, particularly perceived threat and lockdown measures, and factors associated with psychological well-being, particularly sense of control. An online survey was completed by participants (N = 8,229) recruited from 79 countries. In line with pre-registered hypotheses, participants showed elevated levels of anxiety and depression worldwide. This poor mental health was predicted by perceived threat. The effect of threat on depression was further moderated by social isolation, but there was no effect of sense of control. Sense of control was low overall, and was predicted negatively by maladaptive coping, but positively by adaptive coping and the perception that the government is dealing with the outbreak. Social isolation increased with quarantine duration, but was mitigated by frequent communication with close ones. Engaging in individual actions to avoid contracting the virus was associated with higher anxiety, except when done professionally. We suggest that early lockdown of the pandemic may have had detrimental psychological effects, which may be alleviated by individual actions such as maintaining frequent social contact and adaptive coping, and by governmental actions which demonstrate support in a public health crisis. Citizens and governments can work together to adapt better to restrictive but necessary measures during the current and future pandemics.

The COVID-19 pandemic is a difficult time for many; not only are people isolated at home, they may also experience the threat that COVID-19 will have a severe impact on their lives. We ran an online survey with 8,229 individuals from 79 countries in April 2020. After establishing levels of psychological well-being, we investigated which factors contribute to better psychological well-being, and which to worse. We found that levels of anxiety and depression were markedly elevated worldwide. The more people thought that COVID-19 was going to have severe effects on their lives, the more anxious and depressed they felt. This effect was even stronger when the individuals felt socially isolated, which was increased when people had been in quarantine for a long time, but reduced when people frequently communicated with their close ones. People felt more in control of their lives when they engaged in positive coping behaviors, such as reframing their situation positively, but not negative coping behaviors, such as substance use. People also felt in control when their government was dealing with the crisis well. We conclude that there are several ways in which psychological well-being can be supported, in the current pandemic but also potential future pandemics.

Spiritual skepticism? Heterogeneous science skepticism in the Netherlands.

Recent work points to the heterogeneous nature of science skepticism. However, most research on science skepticism has been conducted in the United States. The current work addresses the generalizability of the knowledge acquired so far by investigating individuals from a Western European country (The Netherlands). Results indicate that various previously reported findings hold up: Mirroring North American patterns, climate change skepticism is associated with political conservatism (but only modestly), and scientific literacy does not contribute to skepticism, except about genetic modification (Study 1 only) and vaccine skepticism (Study 2 only). Results also reveal a crucial difference: Religiosity does not consistently contribute to science skepticism, except about evolution. Instead, spirituality is found to most consistently predict vaccine skepticism and low general faith in science-which in turn predicts willingness to support science. Concerns about societal impact play an additional role. These findings speak to the generalizability of previous findings, improving our understanding of science skepticism.

Not All Skepticism Is Equal: Exploring the Ideological Antecedents of Science Acceptance and Rejection.

Many topics that scientists investigate speak to people's ideological worldviews. We report three studies-including an analysis of large-scale survey data-in which we systematically investigate the ideological antecedents of general faith in science and willingness to support science, as well as of science skepticism of climate change, vaccination, and genetic modification (GM). The main predictors are religiosity and political orientation, morality, and science understanding. Overall, science understanding is associated with vaccine and GM food acceptance, but not climate change acceptance. Importantly, different ideological predictors are related to the acceptance of different scientific findings. Political conservatism best predicts climate change skepticism. Religiosity, alongside moral purity concerns, best predicts vaccination skepticism. GM food skepticism is not fueled by religious or political ideology. Finally, religious conservatives consistently display a low faith in science and an unwillingness to support science. Thus, science acceptance and rejection have different ideological roots, depending on the topic of investigation.

The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality.

Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively. We report ten studies (N = 2328) that investigated morality judgments of scientists and compared those with judgments of various control groups, including atheists. A persistent intuitive association between scientists and disturbing immoral conduct emerged for violations of the binding moral foundations, particularly when this pertained to violations of purity. However, there was no association in the context of the individualizing moral foundations related to fairness and care. Other evidence found that scientists were perceived as similar to others in their concerns with the individualizing moral foundations of fairness and care, yet as departing for all of the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Furthermore, participants stereotyped scientists particularly as robot-like and lacking emotions, as well as valuing knowledge over morality and being potentially dangerous. The observed intuitive immorality associations are partially due to these explicit stereotypes but do not correlate with any perceived atheism. We conclude that scientists are perceived not as inherently immoral, but as capable of immoral conduct.

The development of the illusion of control and sense of agency in 7- to-12-year old children and adults.

The illusion of control can be defined as the erroneous belief that one's actions cause a specific outcome, whereas sense of agency refers to the subjective feeling of authorship over one's actions. In the present study we investigated the development of illusory control and sense of agency. A novel card-guessing game was developed in which 7- to-12-year old children (Study 1) and adults (Study 2) were required to select a card, and we manipulated the congruence of the outcome with their initial choice (i.e., congruent or incongruent) and the valence of the outcome that was presented (i.e., positive or negative). We found that illusory control and the self-attribution bias (i.e., the bias to attribute positive outcomes to oneself) in the card guessing game decreased, as children get older. In contrast, for both children and adults sense of agency in the task was similarly affected by outcome congruency, suggesting that the ability to relate predicted to observed action outcomes reflects a basic mechanism that helps people to sustain a sense of agency. Thus, while the illusion of control decreases as we get older, the experience of agency as a function of outcome congruency seems to be more stable across development.

In doubt and disorderly: Ambivalence promotes compensatory perceptions of order.

Ambivalence is a presumably unpleasant experience, and coming to terms with it is an intricate part of human existence. It is argued that ambivalent attitude holders cope with their ambivalence through compensatory perceptions of order. We first show that ambivalence leads to an increase in (visual) perceptions of order (Study 1). In Study 2 we conceptually replicate this finding by showing that ambivalence also increases belief in conspiracy theories, a cognitive form of order perception. Furthermore, this effect is mediated by the negative emotions that are elicited by ambivalence. In Study 3 we show that increased need for order is driving these effects: Affirmations of order cancel out the effect of ambivalence on perceptions of order. Theoretical as well as societal implications are discussed.

Steps, stages, and structure: finding compensatory order in scientific theories.

Stage theories are prominent and controversial in science. One possible reason for their appeal is that they provide order and predictability. Participants in Experiment 1 rated stage theories as more orderly and predictable (but less credible) than continuum theories. In Experiments 2-5, we showed that order threats increase the appeal of stage theories of grief (Experiment 2) and moral development (Experiments 4 and 5). Experiment 3 yielded similar results for a stage theory on Alzheimer's disease characterized by predictable decline, suggesting that preference for stage theories is independent of valence. Experiment 4 showed that the effect of threat on theory preference was mediated by the motivated perception of order, and Experiment 5 revealed that it is particularly the fixed order of stages that increases their appeal.

When death is good for life: considering the positive trajectories of terror management.

Research derived from terror management theory (TMT) has shown that people's efforts to manage the awareness of death often have deleterious consequences for the individual and society. The present article takes a closer look at the conceptual foundations of TMT and considers some of the more beneficial trajectories of the terror management process. The awareness of mortality can motivate people to enhance their physical health and prioritize growth-oriented goals; live up to positive standards and beliefs; build supportive relationships and encourage the development of peaceful, charitable communities; and foster open-minded and growth-oriented behaviors. The article also tentatively explores the potential enriching impact of direct encounters with death. Overall, the present analysis suggests that although death awareness can, at times, generate negative outcomes, it can also function to move people along more positive trajectories and contribute to the good life.