Paper Title: Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Author(s) and Year: Susan T. Fiske & Cydney Dupree (2014)

Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)

TL;DR: Communicator’s credibility depends on two equally critical traits: expertise (competence) and trustworthiness (warmth). The public views scientists as highly competent but low in warmth, meaning they are respected but not trusted. Science communication works best when centered on teaching and sharing, rather than persuasion, particularly in sensitive topics like climate science.

Why I chose this paper: This paper explores why scientists with extensive technical qualifications frequently fail to establish meaningful connections with receptive audiences. Its findings are generalizable across all domains of science outreach, and have changed the way I will approach science communication. I will now try to put more effort into presenting myself as trustworthy to my audiences.

Special note: This bite was prepared as part of a group project for the Science Communication and Outreach course at KU Leuven.

Why do researchers face difficulties persuading receptive, motivated audiences? Recipients may comprehend fundamentals of a subject and its real-world implications, yet resist widely-accepted scientific consensus. This disconnect is rarely rooted in an audience’s lack of knowledge or logical reasoning. This is because credible communication is based on two equally essential pillars: expertise and trustworthiness. While many researchers dedicate their careers to developing rigorous technical expertise, trustworthiness is frequently underprioritized. This in turn may negatively affect their science communication efforts.

The Background

Around the world, solving urgent global challenges, from climate action to public health, depends on the public trusting and acting on scientific research. Yet a gap remains: even highly qualified scientists may struggle to persuade their audiences to accept scientific consensus. This is one of the defining challenges of modern science communication. 

This gap is rooted in a long-recognized truth of effective communication: persuasion relies on more than just facts. Modern science communication has largely focused on data and credentials, while ignoring the trust element. Public views of science are shaped by both rational understanding (cognition) and feelings (affect), and ignoring the emotional side of communication makes persuasion far less effective.

The paper draws on the Stereotype Content Model, a universal framework showing people judge all social groups on two dimensions:

• Warmth, that is perceived intent (trustworthy, friendly, on “our side”); and
• Competence, that is perceived ability (knowledgeable, skilled, accurate).

Groups that are rated high in both warmth and competence earn admiration. However, groups that are seen as high in competence but low in warmth trigger ambivalence: they are respected for their expertise, but not trusted, and often viewed with wariness. This is the exact category the public places scientists in; and it is the root of this science communication gap.

The Research Question

The paper explores three central themes:

1. How does the public rate scientists on the warmth and competence dimensions?
2. What specific motives make the public distrust climate scientists?
3. How can scientists adjust their communication to build warmth in addition to competence?

The Methods

This research used two online questionnaires with participants from the United States to measure public perceptions of scientists and science communication credibility.

Phase 1: Mapping public perceptions of scientists

The authors asked the first respondent group to list common professions in the US, from which they selected 42 most frequently-mentioned, including scientists. Another group then evaluated these jobs on perceived warmth and trustworthiness. The researchers then mapped the results on a two-dimensional warmth-trustworthiness map to see where scientists fall on it.

Phase 2: Trust in climate scientists as a case study

The authors then tested the results in a case study focusing on climate science with a third respondent group. They rated climate scientists on a Likert scale, a response scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”, measuring distrust (self-serving or misleading motives) and trust (public-focused, helpful motives). The researchers then analyzed which perceived motives increase or decrease public trust in climate scientists.

The Results

Public stereotyping of scientists

In the first phase, participants rated scientists and researchers alongside other common American occupations. The results show that scientists, along with researchers, engineers, CEOs, and lawyers, fall into the high-competence, low-warmth cluster of professions labeled the “envied” group. This clustering aligns with the Stereotype Content Model. These groups are perceived as having high societal status and competing for shared resources, leading to consistent perceptions of high technical skill, but low trustworthiness and prosocial intent.

The data further identifies a measurable risk tied to this “envied” grouping: participants reported feelings of malicious pleasure when high-competence, low-warmth groups experience misfortune. This emotional response undermines audiences’ willingness to accept and act on messages from these groups, including scientists.

Trust perceptions of climate scientists

In the second phase, the study tested these core patterns in a real-world science communication context, focusing on climate scientists. Overall distrust in climate scientists was low: participants rated their general distrust at a mean of 2.16 on a 5-point scale, below the midpoint and consistent with general trust ratings for scientists broadly.

One specific concern stood out as the only distrust item rated above the scale midpoint, that is the public’s perception that climate scientists’ top motive is to gain research funding. In contrast, participants expressed strong trust in climate scientists who framed their work around educating the public, protecting the environment, or benefiting humanity.

The Impact 

From climate action to public health, many of the world’s most urgent challenges rely on the public trusting and acting on scientific research. This study explains one of the key barriers to effective science communication, and shares insights on how to address it.

First, the study found that teachers and professors are viewed as far more trustworthy than research-focused scientists. This suggests that framing your work around teaching context, discussing findings openly, and sharing knowledge signals you have the best interests of your audience in mind.

Second, the top source of public distrust in climate scientists is the belief they are chasing research funding. To build trust, communication could be centered around real-world benefits of climate research, such as educating the public, protecting the environment, or supporting community wellbeing.

Finally, scientists are already widely respected for their expertise, but often seen as cold and untrustworthy. This gap makes audiences less likely to act on scientific advice. Prioritizing warmth and trust in communication might fix this tension, turning trust into real public engagement.

—

Written by Ming Lyu

Edited by Ziyao ‘Peder’ Guo and Mykyta ‘Nik’ Kliapets

Featured image credit: National Cancer Institute under Unsplash License