Scientists’ credibility depends on audience and perceived motives
July 10, 2026 --
A new study from Virginia Tech found that scientists’ credibility often hinges on their perceived motivations.
“Our study finds that perceptions of scientists’ motivation to serve the public good are the strongest predictor of whether Americans trust them, accept their information as credible, and support science-based policies,” said Dara Wald, associate professor in environmental policy and planning .
Published in Nature: Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , postdoctoral fellow Shumaila Bhatti and Associate Professor Dara M. Wald, both in the School of Public and International Affairs , identified five audience “classes” based on their perceptions of scientists’ credibility: enthusiasts, optimists, moderates, skeptics, and estranged. Researchers examined each group’s likelihood of adhering to recommendations from scientists, how they were influenced by politically controversial and non-controversial topics, and their underlying demographics.
According to the researchers, the work highlights a communication gap between how scientists often view credibility – expertise – and how the public perceives it – motivations — as well as many scientists lack training in communicating their personal motivations.
“The public wants something, expects something from science that science is not providing and scientists are not trained to do,” Bhatti said. “We’re trained to communicate our competence, expertise, or our research objectives. Our results suggest that the public also expects scientists to share the intentions behind the work we do, and I think that is where the disconnect is.”
(From left) Dara Wald, associate professor, and Shumaila Bhatti, postdoctoral fellow, both in the School of Public and International Affairs. Photos courtesy of Dara Wald and Shumaila Bhatti.
To better understand these dynamics, the researchers surveyed 927 participants about their perceptions of scientists' motivations and credibility. They also included an experiment where participants saw one of two articles — one on a generally accepted non-controversial topic of salmonella and one more controversial on heatwaves. Results suggest that public estimates of scientific credibility differed depending on the topic as well as the audience class.
The five audience classes identified and characterized through this work were broken into the following groups from the high credibility perceptions to the lowest:
Enthusiasts
Optimists
Moderates
Skeptics
Estranged
“I was intrigued by the moderates because they were sometimes disengaged and other times engaged,” Bhatti said. “It depended on the context.”
The researchers warn that skepticism about scientific credibility can have real-world consequences if the public does not trust the motivation behind scientific findings or recommendations.
“If there’s a flood forecasted, we want people to know that predictive models have suggested they’re at risk, right?” said Wald, an affiliate with the Invasive Species Collaborative . “Whether you believe that the causes of that flooding are climate related or not, the goal of sharing these models is to protect life and property. If the public is skeptical of the scientists making these predictions, they are less likely to take protective action.”
According to Wald and Bhatti, the study is the first step in closing an important communication gap between scientists and the public. Identifying different audience classes helps in understanding how different audiences may respond to scientific outreach and where scientists need to adjust their messaging to more effectively communicate to all audiences.
“Even the most dismissive group generally had okay scores on scientific competence, but actually what they’re questioning here are scientists’ intentions, their values, and their motivations,” said Wald also affiliate with the Fralin Life Sciences Institute ’s Global Change Center . “And those are the really big things that scientists are not prepared to talk about.”
Funding for this research was through Wald’s National Science Foundation Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program award and by Department of Health and Human Services-National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Science.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications
There is not one public: divergent perceptions of scientists’ source credibility in the United States
2-Jul-2026