How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions

ABSTRACT

Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.

KEYWORDS:

• Public trust and distrust in science
• perceptions of science and technology
• representative surveys
• survey measures
• systematic review

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Monika Taddicken and Peter Weingart for fruitful discussions and for commenting on earlier drafts of this article. We also want to thank John Besley for his recommendations regarding sample selection and providing surveys we had no access to. Furthermore, we would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their reviews as well as Insa Miller for proofreading the final manuscript. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the review process was rather long: The first versions of this manuscript remained “under review” until 1 October 2020; the revised version from 8 February 2021 to 5 January 2022.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In this paper, we use “science” in its wider definition, including all forms of academic research, such as humanities and social sciences. Hence, when we talk about public (dis)trust in science we also refer to all kinds of academic research.

2 The “science and society” paradigm is the current paradigm of science communication, which has extended and reversed the deficit style models of the previous paradigms (“scientific literacy” assumed a public knowledge deficit; “public understanding of science” assumed a public attitudinal deficit). The current paradigm presumes that deficits—also related to trust— have to be considered from both points of view, the public but also the scientific institutions and their representatives, who view the public as being ignorant. The “crisis of trust” (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 85) is thus seen as a crisis of the contract between science and the public. Science communication initiatives aim to rebuild public trust in science through dialogue and public engagement with science.

3 To give two examples: “How much do you trust in science and research?”—on a five point Likert-type scale from 1, ‘trust completely’, to 5, ‘do not trust’, with an ‘I don’t know/no response’ option (Wissenschaft im Dialog, 2020), or “How much, if at all, do you trust each of the following to follow any rules and regulations which apply to their profession? Scientists working for universities”, on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 1, ‘trust a great deal’, to 4, ‘do not trust at all’, again, with an ‘I don’t know’ option (Castell et al., 2014).

4 The object of trust is also called trustee, (e.g. Hendriks et al., 2015, 2016), entrusted person, (e.g. Resnik, 2011), or recipient of trust (e.g. Schäfer, 2016). Respectively, the subject of trust is also referred to as trustor, trusting person, or giver of trust.

5 Anderson (2011) identified similar assessments of trustworthiness as expertise, honesty, and responsibility.

6 Public trust, according to Bentele (1994, 1998), refers to publicly perceivable (e.g. by media reporting) individuals, organisations, or systems.

7 Scientific articles often only focus on single aspects of (dis)trust in science as a relational variable, and, due to a lack of representativeness, they often describe (dis)trust for distinct groups of people.

8 For surveys where public attitudes towards S&T were a small topic among many others, only public attitudes towards S&T items were included.

9 Generalised (dis)trust in science has to be differentiated from (dis)trust related to specific fields of science. For instance, Allum et al. (2008) found that the often-assumed correlation between knowledge and attitudes is more dominant when tested for science in general. Besley et al. (2021) emphasised that general perceptions of science and attitudes depend on other dimensions of (dis)trust than perceptions and attitudes related to GM food. They also stated (p. 23) that “certain general perceptions of scientists may not predict support for a specific type of research or perceptions of scientists doing research in a particular area.”

10 Despite our understanding of trust as distinct from the theoretical concept of confidence (risk perception, possible alternatives; Luhmann, 2000), both terms are used synonymously in everyday language and thus are often used as such in the surveys analysed.

11 In contrast to our other categories in which only one level per item was coded.

12 (Dis)trust in media and journalism is a prime topic in communication science (see Engelke et al., 2019, for an overview). Similar to (dis)trust in science, theoretical and empirical work defines both different levels and dimensions of (dis)trust in journalism (e.g. Kohring & Matthes, 2007). We do not differentiate levels and dimensions for media/journalism, as this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Additional information

Funding

The research presented in this paper was part of the project ‘The Trust Relationship between Science and Digitized Publics’ (TruSDi), funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – 456602133. Grant applicants are Monika Taddicken (TA 712/4-1) and Lars Guenther (GU 1674/3-1). The project is coordinated by Anne Reif and supported by Peter Weingart in an advisory capacity. Further members of the research group are Justin T. Schröder, Evelyn Peter, and Janise Brück.

Notes on contributors

Anne Reif

Anne Reif is a Research Associate at the Institute for Communication Science at the Technische Universität Braunschweig, Germany. In her Ph.D. project she focused on trust in science and the use of online media from the audience's perspective. Her main research interests are in the fields of science and digital communication. She is currently coordinating and researching in the DFG funded project TruSDi (“The Trust Relationship between Science and Digitized Publics” https://www.tu-braunschweig.de/ifkw/trusdi).

Lars Guenther

Lars Guenther (PhD, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany) is a Senior Research Associate in the Cluster of Excellence on “Climate, Climatic Change, and Society” (CLICCS) at University of Hamburg, Germany, and Extraordinary Associate Professor at the Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. His research interests focus on science and health journalism, as well as public trust, and communication of risks and (un)certainty.