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

Abstract

Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another's apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, "envied" professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences' respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists' trustworthy intentions.

Keywords: public images; scientist stereotypes.

Fig. 1.

Five-cluster solution describing American societal groups. Adults completed a survey rating previously nominated common groups each on their public images of being warm and trustworthy, as well as competent and capable. Group mean ratings on the two dimensions are subjected to statistical cluster analysis (23, 24). Note that these data map reported images of social groups, not the accuracy of those images. (Reprinted with permission from Ref. .)

Fig. 2.

Warmth–competence ratings of commonly mentioned jobs. Four-cluster solution describes American job holders. Adults completed an online survey rating previously nominated common jobs on their public images of being warm and trustworthy, as well as competent and capable. Jobs’ mean ratings on the two dimensions are subjected to statistical cluster analysis (see SI text). Note that these data map reported images of job groups, not the accuracy of those images. Although not the focus here, the middle cluster averages are relatively neutral on both warmth and competence, as well as emotions (see SI text).