Exposure to Different Motives of Scientists Moderates Responses to Scientific Consensus: The Case of Cultured Meat

This research examines how exposure to different motives of scientists affects the impact of scientific consensus on public attitudes toward cultured meat. While scientific consensus on the safety of cultured meat generally increased positive attitudes toward it, this effect depended on information about scientists’ motives. Exposure to information about scientists’ financial motives weakened the positive effect of scientific consensus because it undermined trust in scientists. Information about scientists’ prosocial motives did not influence the scientific consensus effect. These findings suggest that perceived motives can shift trust in experts, thereby affecting the influence of experts on public attitudes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Science Communication
Published
2024-09-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241277196
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Climate Change Communication and Perception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
5.66
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Exposure to Different Motives of Scientists Moderates Responses to Scientific Consensus: The Case of Cultured Meat

Bryan K. C. Choy, Kimin Eom
5 citations
Science Communication
Climate Change Communication and Perception
5.66
article

Exposure to Different Motives of Scientists Moderates Responses to Scientific Consensus: The Case of Cultured Meat

Bryan K. C. Choy, Kimin Eom
article en
5 citations

Abstract

This research examines how exposure to different motives of scientists affects the impact of scientific consensus on public attitudes toward cultured meat. While scientific consensus on the safety of cultured meat generally increased positive attitudes toward it, this effect depended on information about scientists’ motives. Exposure to information about scientists’ financial motives weakened the positive effect of scientific consensus because it undermined trust in scientists. Information about scientists’ prosocial motives did not influence the scientific consensus effect. These findings suggest that perceived motives can shift trust in experts, thereby affecting the influence of experts on public attitudes.

Science CommunicationVol. 47(3)
Australian National University (AU), Singapore Management University (SG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Climate Change Communication and Perception
5.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.