Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims

US conservatives are often seen as distrusting scientists, and liberals as more trusting. This article examines how alignment between an expert's field and individual political ideology affects claims perceptions. US adults (<i>N</i> = 1054) participated in a pre-registered (https://osf.io/9wnm2) online experiment, indicating their trust in five experts and evaluating the accuracy of four claims. Claims were attributed to experts from impact fields (focused on the consequences of industry and policy), production fields (industry-focused), scientists in general, or no source. Results show that liberals trust all experts more than conservatives and generally perceive claims as more accurate. However, the trust gap between liberals and conservatives is smaller for production experts. While no difference was found between the perceived accuracy of claims attributed to production versus impact experts, expert attribution increased some claims' perceived accuracy. These findings reveal some political-ideology preferences and that attributing a claim to an expert can improve its perception.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Public Understanding of Science
Published
2025-09-19
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251372081
Primary Topic
Climate Change Communication and Perception
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims

Rodrigo Alonso Reyes Cordova
Public Understanding of Science
Climate Change Communication and Perception
article

Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims

Rodrigo Alonso Reyes Cordova
article en

Abstract

US conservatives are often seen as distrusting scientists, and liberals as more trusting. This article examines how alignment between an expert's field and individual political ideology affects claims perceptions. US adults (<i>N</i> = 1054) participated in a pre-registered (https://osf.io/9wnm2) online experiment, indicating their trust in five experts and evaluating the accuracy of four claims. Claims were attributed to experts from impact fields (focused on the consequences of industry and policy), production fields (industry-focused), scientists in general, or no source. Results show that liberals trust all experts more than conservatives and generally perceive claims as more accurate. However, the trust gap between liberals and conservatives is smaller for production experts. While no difference was found between the perceived accuracy of claims attributed to production versus impact experts, expert attribution increased some claims' perceived accuracy. These findings reveal some political-ideology preferences and that attributing a claim to an expert can improve its perception.

Public Understanding of ScienceVol. 35(2)
XLAB (Slovenia) (SI), Communication, Information, Médias (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Climate Change Communication and Perception
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.