Guess Who? Scientist Edition
Paper Title: Who Said What? Confusing Scientists and Laypeople on Social Media
Author(s) and Year: Eva M. Rudholzer and Sonja Utz, 2026
Journal: Basic and Applied Social Psychology (open access)
TL;DR: People often struggle to distinguish scientists from non-scientists on social media. Profile information and clear cues about expertise can help, but platforms don’t always make this information immediately visible, and users may not seek it out. Effective science communication isn’t just about explaining research clearly—it also requires making expertise easier to recognize.
Why I chose this paper: This study focuses on how people perceive expertise rather than misinformation itself. If scientists are not easily distinguished from non-experts online, it may affect whose information people trust and share. This research is relevant to scientists, communicators, educators, and anyone interested in how social media users process science-related information.
Imagine you’re scrolling through your social media feed. Multiple people are explaining the same new research. There are scientists studying the topic, journalists covering recent research, and others are simply sharing their thoughts. Can you tell them apart?
The Background
As more people get their science from social media, we often focus on whether the information is accurate, but we also judge who is sharing it. Expertise can serve as a shortcut for assessing credibility, making our ability to recognize an expert important for evaluating scientific information. Getting it wrong could mean trusting inaccurate information from a non-expert or dismissing valid evidence from a scientist, with potential implications for issues like public health and climate change.
A recent study by Eva M. Rudholzer and Sonja Utz therefore asked a simple question: Can people tell who is a scientist online?
The researchers also wanted to know:
- Does visible profile information help users identify scientists and laypeople?
- Do cues within posts, such as a scientist referencing “my research,” make identification easier?
- When profile information requires an extra click, does accessing it improve identification?
The Methods
A Psychology Experiment Goes Online
Participants viewed mock social media posts from scientists and laypeople. Each profile included a name and photo, while posts contained either a scientific statement about climate change or a private statement. Some science posts were diagnostic, explicitly revealing the author’s role, such as a scientist referring to “our research.” Others were non-diagnostic, discussing science without revealing the author’s background. Finally, participants completed a 60-second distraction task followed by a surprise memory test in which they had to match the statements they saw to who posted them. This approach, known as the “Who Said What?” paradigm, uses patterns in memory errors to reveal how people categorize others. Comparing mistakes within and between groups showed whether participants remembered a sender as a scientist or layperson even when they forgot exactly who posted what.
Putting Social Media to the Test
In the first experiment, 311 participants viewed 72 posts either with or without profile information and were asked to identify their roles. When visible, profiles included a short bio implying the person’s role, a photo, and follower and following counts.
In a follow-up experiment, 288 participants scrolled through 40 posts in a mock feed modeled after X. One group saw profile information alongside each post, while the other had to click the sender’s name or photo to reveal it. Researchers tracked clicks to see how often participants sought additional information and whether doing so improved identification.
The Results
Profiles Help – But Only So Much
Participants were better at distinguishing scientists from laypeople when profile information was visible, but the improvement was modest. They still struggled to identify laypeople, and without profile information, scientists and non-scientists were more frequently confused, suggesting that scientific language may make non-experts appear more like scientists.
The type of post also mattered. Diagnostic posts from scientists were easiest to categorize, especially with profile information, while non-diagnostic posts created more confusion.
Scrolling vs. Investigating
Participants could still distinguish scientists from laypeople when profile information required an extra click, although those who saw it immediately performed slightly better. Additionally, participants checked profiles about once every six posts and were no more likely to investigate scientists than laypeople. Those who checked more frequently, however, were better at distinguishing between the two.
Expertise Isn’t Always Visible
Together, the experiments show that both post content and information about the author shape how people recognize expertise. When users don’t check profiles, expertise can be overlooked or attributed to the wrong person, potentially giving non-experts undue credibility or discounting actual experts. Clear cues within posts and more visible profile information can make expertise easier to recognize.
The Impact
Science communication often focuses on making research easier to understand. This study highlights another challenge: making expertise recognizable. In crowded social media feeds, readers may not automatically notice who has the relevant scientific background, especially if they never look beyond the post itself. Making profile information more visible and accessible through platform design may help audiences recognize expertise before deciding whether to trust a message. While scientists can also help by clearly signaling their expertise, the responsibility cannot fall on communicators alone.
For scientists communicating online, making their expertise visible may be just as important as communicating what they know.
Written by Anika Zaman
Edited by Abigail A. Agbaze and Diego Ramírez Martín del Campo.
Featured image credit: Jay Williams from Flickr
