Behavioral Aspects of Trust in Science

We should be more strategic and precise when discussing trust in science. Becoming more intentional can help us see opportunities to demonstrate the scientific community’s trustworthiness to help bolster society’s willingness to turn to science when making decisions and to trust science-informed advice. Being precise about trust and trustworthiness can also help us identify areas where the scientific community can become more worthy of trust.

The science communication literature does not typically discuss the four items that Celinda Lake and Emily Garner identify as dimensions of trustworthiness in “Who’s Afraid to Share Science in Their Listserv?” (Issues, Spring 2025). Some, such as efficacy, are distinct variables in models used to understand people’s willingness to engage in science-related behaviors (e.g., Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior). Instead, the most common way to think about trust is to distinguish between the behavior of putting one’s trust in someone else (i.e., behavioral trust as a willingness to make oneself vulnerable) and the trustworthiness beliefs (i.e., perceptions) that make such behavior more likely. These beliefs typically include beliefs about a trustee’s ability, benevolent motivations, and integrity. Some recent discussions have suggested that beliefs about openness, including both a willingness to listen and share, may also matter. These sub-dimensions go by different names in various literatures but the underlying concepts are similar. For example, researchers who focus on credibility suggest that people will trust a source if they see it as having expertise, goodwill, and honesty.

We agree with Lake and Gardner that a prevailing “us vs. them” feeling (e.g., “In this house, we believe in science” yard signs) impacts trust in science. We also agree with concerns about the entanglement between (political) ideology and trust; that science has become a vehicle for asserting political agendas. Our concern is that scientists and their universities, at least in the United States, have not helped matters. Many have engaged in what some refer to as “cultural missionary work” that has predictably alienated large segments of American society by demonstrating that scientists’ often don’t seem to care about their everyday challenges and are unwilling to listen to their concerns. We critically need to reimagine higher education so that it serves everyone in society.

Universities should be safe environments in which people learn to engage respectfully with each other and our diverse, often contradicting, ideas. In doing so, we learn to manage, debate, and discuss the fluidity of evidence and uncertainty that is inherent in science. In other words, we learn to live in and cultivate a civil society that respects difference and diversity. As scientists, we can’t control how others talk about or treat us. However, what we can do is make deliberate choices about how we behave. We, therefore, need to behave in ways that demonstrate trustworthiness, including the degree to which we care about others’ needs, work hard to protect the integrity of science, and listen to others’ concerns. And it is imperative that we do so now.

Sara K. Yeo

John C. Besley